February 2002 ODLG Program The Future of Organizations Produced by Jim Murphy With assistance from Margaret Carver, Sue Cuyler, Debra Dugan, Eroca Gabriel, Velda McCrae, Sue Taylor, Tere Tedesco, Christine Tello, and Wendy Willams   Nature of the Program This program was partly a sequel to the presentation on “The Organization of the Future” at the September 2001 ODLG meeting. It was also an introduction to World Café, a discussion technique with similarities to Dialogue and to Open Space, but evidently not at as well known.   A Technique for Selecting Discussion Topics The program began with an interactive exercise. This technique (which, as far is known, was invented by Jim Murphy) is recommended for selecting discussion topics, especially in groups that may be hesitant to speak up or otherwise identify the really meaningful issues. The “votes” are tallied and those statements that got the most choices (agreement plus disagreement) become the topics for discussion. How many chosen will naturally depend on the number of participants and the allotted time. In selecting the quotations to be voted on, the facilitator has the opportunity to be creative. Source material could include observations made by people in the work environment or perhaps excerpts from Peter Block’s Stewardship paired with quotes from Dilbert. In groups that do not have a history of safe discussion, care is obviously indicated. It may likewise be advisable to avoid choices that are too loaded, and it is generally wise to have at least some that are non-controversial (even, as on this occasion, platitudinous). It is of course desirable to give participants the results of what the group thought. For the tally of how this audience voted on the twenty-four selected “theses on the future of organizations”, click here. For the handout giving the instructions for this exercise, click here.   A Technique for Interactive Presentation Graphics  The next segment of the program was an introduction to the twenty-four possible discussion items as indicators of the “future of organizations”. In keeping with the all-interactive framework of this program, this part was intended to show how presentation graphics can be used in an interactive manner, as opposed to the kind of lecturing combined with torture so frequently criticized by, notably, Peter Block. The idea is that each slide is presented not a finished product, but rather as a draft. Instead of reading the slides, the presenter asks for the audience to comment on them. By taking notes on what people say, a “final” version is produced. As was noted in the delta, whatever the value of this technique, it requires even more time than the usual “onslaught by PowerPoint”. One perceptive participant noted that, given the agenda time constraints, it would have better if the presenter had gone over only the first two slides and left the rest as “an exercise for the reader”. The fact the presenter did not realize the truth of this idea on his own shows of course how easier it is for an observer to catch on to possible better methods rather than for the person who is performing the action. It also illustrates that there is an inherent, perhaps even uncontrollable, tendency for people using PowerPoint to show every slide. However that may be, this recommended approach has been applied in these notes! For the presentation piece itself, click here.   Legacy of the 1980s and 1990s In considering the future of organizations and OD, it is helpful to begin by considering what are the most significant continuing trends. The presenter suggested the following list for the most important ongoing legacies of the past two decades:      Empowerment   Learning organization   Diversity   Team-based management   Continual change Some additional suggestions from the audience were as follows:  Knowledge management [Might be combined with learning organization]  Excellence [Might be combined with quality/TQM]  Change agency  Performance management The presenter noted that some trends that are relatively new might eventually prove to be as significant as those chosen. The following might be candidates for such inclusion:     Dialogue   Emotional intelligence   Open book management   Virtual teams   Empowerment and Organizations Empowerment was suggested as the most important organizational/OD trend of them all. Beginning with Greenleaf’s 1976 Servant Leadership, continuing with Peter Block’s 1987 The Empowered Manager and perhaps culminating in Block’s 1993 Stewardship, this concept has revolutionized management practice. Being now in the post-empowerment era, we can see that its most important effects may be as follows:  Management as a caste is fading away, as management has become   something that all employees do, not just the function of an elite. All members of the organization are becoming involved in all aspects of the organization, particularly as Open Book Management is combined with empowerment.  "The job” is disappearing, a tendency increased by new fluid organizational structures and by team based management. Everyone is a leader, with leadership being seen as a skill to be developed in all employees, not just some of them.   World Café The program then segued into World Café format. World Café is a discussion method that is particularly suitable when there are a large number of topics, when there are time or other constraints, and when purposeful results are desired. In “ODLG” terms it could be considered a natural choice, as it is based small group discussion with reports back.  World Café (see bibliography for details) was basically invented on January 27, 1995, by David and Juanita Brown. In its intended form, it takes place in a café setting of tables with coffee, food and music. Due to location restrictions, this “full setting” arrangement was not practical at this meeting; but, to give those with sufficiently vivid imagination some idea of the experience, pictures of food and of musicians were placed on each table. Each table is devoted to one topic. (An identifying sign is a useful aid.) People first go that table which has the topic in which they are most interested.  If a table fills, however, one has to choose another one. One of those at each table agrees to serve as “host”. The host takes notes and remains at the table. Discussion is held for rounds that in this case were twenty minutes long. After each round, the “guests” move on to another table. At the beginning of each new round, the host summarizes the prior discussions at that table. For the handout explaining the World Café process, click here. Obviously there can be some variants. Depending on the number of tables and of rounds, individuals may or may not be able to discuss each topic. As in Open Space, each topic has to attract an audience. In this instance, one theme ran out of steam and a new table was formed to discuss the topic that the next largest number of votes. Word Café was shown to be very easy technique to introduce and execute. Facilitators had been assigned, but proved to be unnecessary, though in organizations where such group discussion is not customary facilitation might be advisable. As master of ceremonies, the presenter had hardly anything to do except to announce when it was time to start another round. (“Why is a good facilitator like senior management? Because when the job is done well, it appears that you are actually doing nothing.”) This night’s Café has four rounds for four tables. Following are notes on the topics that were discussed. An asterisk indicates “presenter’s award” for greatest insight; those who made these statements are urged to come forth and claim a prize. Work should be fun (Strongly agree: 11, Strongly disagree: 1) How to make work fun: Chose to prioritize things for the most energy; make it fun for yourself or those who work with you; select jobs than are fun; pick those parts of the job that are fun Recent startups have provided fun environments (e.g., setting up street hockey), with high cost fun, though they may have gone over the edge and one can question the necessity of doing this. There is a productivity factor: Goofing off (or goofing up) can be counterproductive and the person responsible for it can suffer the consequences. We should take ownership for fun and build fun things into work. You should love the work you do. The grass is not always greener in the other workplace. It is management’s responsibility to remove obstacles to fun, not to squash it, and to create a fun environment. You don’t have to bring donuts every day. There has to be balance: you can have fun, but you still have to get it done; you can keep it interesting but still complete the work. Choose people who can have fun but who also can get the work done even if it is not fun. When fun is taken away, management should compensate for unfun. Celebrating little wins can add to fun; these celebrations don’t have to be big, they just have to show the work was noticed. How does this statement fit with OD? We need to promote energy and creativity. Business should be informative. Is this a corollary of empowerment? “I gave you my hands, you never asked for my head.” How do you ask someone to have fun? Examples: Crossing guard who enjoys learning names and faces of every child and parent. Taxi driver who remembered everything about every customer. *A person who does not have control over the job can’t use it to support other passions or as an outlet for creativity. Perhaps there is fun in camaraderie. It is not necessarily management’s job to make work fun; there is an employer-employee contract. Your compensation is compensation. Fun is a bonus in the strictest sense. Not having fun, with repeated layoffs, costs money and lowers productivity. Providing fun doesn’t cost a lot of money but it has to be natural and not forced. Structured activities can be unfun. There is fun in individual attitudes toward work. “Fred has fun projects. I don’t – I make the work fun.” You can have a lot of things and still be a miserable person. Maybe it is individual motivation that makes work fun. It is the team leader’s position to encourage fun. What does the team want to do? What do they like? Can they be catered to? When there is no fun, work can be counterproductive. Fun is integral to me as a person and as a manager. It is an important part of good work. Fun can play a big part in helping a group after intensity. People give a lot to training, so provide entertainment and inject fun. Fun is an opportunity to bond. This statement could be interpreted to mean that management should make an edict that work be fun. But fun comes from people. Fun can be shared on a team or in training – it’s infectious. Structured fun does not work: compare family vacations. Fun allows one to blow off steam. Management should not inhibit spontaneous fun by being stiff. Fun is infectious – it creates a critical mass. Fun makes you want to work. There is a competency in being able to create fun with training projects. There should be something about the work environment that provides fun. Fun creates an environment for learning. Fun is very important, especially when the work is stressful. You can be fired for having fun. How can we create a fun environment? Does it come the individual or the group? Perhaps from the general culture of the organization? You can identify fun people in an interview process. Interview on personality and how cool one is. Teams foster fun. Factors outside the work environment influence the amount of fun one has (e.g., happy hours, baseball games). But these cost money and may relate only to a certain age group or other set (e.g., single vs. married). How can a meeting be fun? Personality; charisma; encouraging silliness. Structured fun vs. fun traditions. What about productivity? It can be adversely affected by fun if people are joking around all the time. Sometimes you have to pull back. Some situations are just not fun – 24/7 work, some dot com’s. As consultants, how can talk about fun? Emphasize the connection between motivation and productivity. Show how leadership can set the tone for fun. Work outside of fun is a big aspect. What are the tip-offs that the people or workplace is fun? How can you find it? What helps you assess it? As a consultant or an employee? You can interview employees individually: how many people here have you made friends with at work? There is a famous video of a Seattle fish market where employees have fun by throwing the fish around. [This is City Fish: for information, see on this classic but expensive video, see http://www.charthouse.com.] How you can create fun in an academic setting? It is not the responsibility of the leader. There has to be a culture of people. Fun always comes from people. Part of our culture is “people are funny”. How can you create a culture? Can you put it into a strategy? There needs to be a strategy to providing fun. Someone has to have the knack to provide a spark or else they will just be thought to be odd. Fun has to be spontaneous, going against the status quo. If it’s done too often, it’s not fun anymore (e.g., exchanging presents). Sustainability is an issue: fun can be grudging. How can we create fun? Look at the process and put a change into it. Fun has to be valued in the organizational culture or else promoting it is like swimming uphill. Managers may say, “We are not here to have fun.” But if they let it happen, they will be more open and they will caught up in it. We are supposed to have fun. You cannot force fun. Although leadership plays a role, perhaps it is an aspect of culture. People have different orientations to life, and some put lots of emphasis on careers.   Interpersonal skills are for everyone (Strongly agree: 11, Strongly disagree: 1) Standard jobs descriptions always cite interpersonal skills. Interpersonal skills alter communication. Interpersonal skills are needed for continual learning. Interpersonal skills are needed to influence change. Interpersonal skills are an avenue to learning. Cultural perspectives affect the nature of interpersonal skills needed (compare scientific environments to other workplaces; Japan to the United States). Can such skills be taught? If so, how? People must own responsibility for communicating. Interpersonal skills include determining what you do or do not communicate. *The challenge for OD practitioners is to find a way to improve the interpersonal skills of an organization. Developing interpersonal skills has to matter to the individual. There has to be a safe environment for training such skills. How can progress in these skills be quantified and measured? What defines interpersonal skills? Are they necessary for every job? There is a diversity of styles in regard to interpersonal skills. Even analysts and engineers have an individual interpersonal style, one that may not be at a socially high level. Interpersonal skills can be language-based or culturally based.   Problems are opportunities (Strongly agree: 9, Strongly disagree: 3) Problem solving can help create a learning organization culture, based on competence and ability. Opportunities are difficult to find. Problems find you. “No guts, no glory.” Difficult situations create great opportunities for growth and for building capacity. Problems can be the fulcrum in which other issues can be brought up, such as morale issues. Calling problems “opportunities” may be viewed as Pollyanna-ish, but it is all in the perception. A problem may be viewed as a door or as something to be stepped on and gotten rid of. Client problems are consultant opportunities! *From a management point of view, there are always problems; the task is to come up with a methodology/proactive way to deal with them. The phrase itself is tough; just dialogue and talk it through to make things better. Extend the phrase: Problems are opportunities to seek new resources and to learn new techniques. People think they are hired to prevent problems rather than to be problem solvers. The focus needs to be on problem solving, not problem prevention. There is no way an organization can be problem-free forever. Everybody is a leader (Strongly agree: 6 Strongly disagree: 6) The idea is nice, but it is not realistic; 95 percent are not leaders. People need to be trained to be leaders. *More people could be leaders if failure is allowed/tolerated and risk taking permitted. What is a leader? Someone who inspires. Someone with vision. Someone able to help people exercise vision. Someone action-oriented. Someone who takes risks. Someone who is trustworthy. Someone who has good interpreting and listening skills. Someone who is authentic. Someone who is articulate and intelligent. Someone who empowers others and self to lead. The statement is affected by the situation. As roles shift, leadership shifts. Everyone isn’t a leader all at once. Leaders can emerge. Can this philosophy be decreed or declared? It would seem unsafe or too risky to do so. There are two aspects: (1) external structure and (2) internal abilities. Leaders are always learning and promoting “winning” (whether “win or lose”). Leaders get the criticism (from those who don’t step up). When authentic, leaders draw energy out of others. Boundaries are important. Do we expect leaders to be perfect? Does a leader always lead? Or do they follow? Or both? People become leaders informally by taking the initiative and taking risks. Qualities of a leader: integrity; consistency; trustworthiness; good intentions; positivity (that does necessarily mean everyone in agreement) A leader can be self-serving. Leaders have appeal and a vision. This statement is not really true and seems like wishful thinking. A leader should be open to others’ ideas and input and doesn’t have to have all the answers. Can a leader actually follow – would that mean not being a leader? Are observers a prerequisite for leadership? Everybody can be or could be a leader. Initiating and taking charge are not the only ways to be a leader. Is this statement about process? Concept? Effect? The idea is not necessarily a good thing. Everyone’s perspective matters. This idea is a consequence of empowerment. Definitions are changing, and leaders are becoming moving targets. Would this statement more indicate an approach than a goal? Leadership requires authority, which means empowering one’s self. Leaders lead themselves as well as others. Everyone is accountable. Leadership is earned. Leadership means empowering others. Leadership should be invisible. Leadership means initiating. The statement is intended to empower people. People can become leaders if they take responsibility. Everyone can be an influencer – isn’t that the same as leading? Leadership implies authority. There are different kinds of leadership: thought leadership; modeling; directing/managing; teaching; being the best – excelling (being the “leader” in a field); pointing people. Leaders talk to people and share knowledge. What we can agree on: When true empowerment exists, everyone is a leader, at least for “themself” (a new word meaning “himself or herself”)   Learning is the most important part of every job. (Strongly agree: 10 Strongly disagree: 0) The claim is too absolute: Learning is important, very important perhaps, but not the most important. Continuous learning is important. Learning is inherent, but not most important. Learning is personal; there must be satisfaction for it to occur. Because we are in a transitional period (caused by new technology), this is true but we could reach a point where it is no longer true. There are many practical applications to this statement. We need to accommodate the different learning styles that people have. Training has to be based on this fact. People have different attitudes toward learning. Interpersonal skills are an important avenue toward learning. Motivation is the key to learning. *We need to present learning opportunities as the means to change and show how they will add value. Learning is important, but scary as well. How do we get everyone interested in learning and motivated to change? We need to break down the resistance to learning. Saying this statement might scare people right away. About 80 percent of learning comes from informal means that are not recognized as learning. We can have learning opportunities but still not learn. Failure doesn’t always lead to learning as it should. Learning is an energizer. Is there awareness of learning and is it in place in companies? Learning increases face-saving in an organization. Learning involves self-processing, but it does involve and concern the supervisor via project reviews. Deep learning comes from disasters or mistakes. About 10 percent of management reflects “ready aim fire”; “fire aim ready” is more common. What is the link between individual and organizational learning? Businesses need to become learning organizations. Individual learning needs to be linked to organizational mission. GE managers are very effective at learning (for example using job rotation to advance situational learning). Stories are a good means to learning. [See forthcoming ODLG program!] When performance fails, a debrief occurs; then learning is most important. The military presents a good example in “after action reviews”. See Chris Argyris for good stuff on this theme.   Change management methods need to be fully participatory. (Strongly agree: 9 Strongly disagree: 0) What does fully participatory mean: A representative from each level of an organization or just input on decision making? Perhaps it depends on the situation. *At some point, everyone is touched in one way or another by change (so they all need to be involved). It depends upon the nature of the change process. “Method” is a subjective term, as the change could be a sea change or something a lot less. Organization-wide change affects everyone at the micro level, making change management methods become on overlay. You could use change management methods every time you implement an initiative. If so, how much input is too much input? How do you avoid “analysis paralysis”?   A Discussion on World Café After the conclusion of four rounds of table discussion, it was time for the final stage of World Café, namely, the reports back from each group. However, at the suggestion of the presenter, the group decided to “waive” this part of the plan (after all, ODLG members are pretty well drilled on reporting back; and this was a demonstration, not a real application) in favor of a discussion about application of the World Café technique. Only one person in attendance had actually used this discussion method before. Everyone seemed to think it was a wonderful tool, but there was some uncertainty on how it could be applied. One suggested instance was the case of some change, perhaps a new system, which had different areas that were impacted. In this case, the tables might correspond to the different organizational units being affected, the idea being to get the whole organization to understand all the issues at stake. Or perhaps the topics could be different issues presented by the change. Another was the case of an organization that wants to change, know it “has problems,” or whatever but has no idea what it should do. In this case, the tables might represent the various interests or else the perceived symptoms. A variant of the preceding would be to use World Café to discuss the results of survey research, perhaps on morale and motivation. The tables could be based on those survey items that got the strongest responses. Indeed, the opening exercise technique could be used to conduct the survey. Still another idea was whether World Café could be used as a methodology for conducting training. (Actually the Army uses a “training table” system.) People could rotate through different training “centers” in the manner used for café discussion. Finally, it is clear that World Café is a good format for groups (such as ODLG!) that wish to talk about various subjects but are not faced with the need for translating the conversation into action. In general, World Café (like Dialogue and Open Space) would seem to be better suited for opening up possibilities and achieving consensus rather than for decision making or planning. Several questions about particular aspects of this technique were brought up. One was whether it is better, necessary, or undesirable to have each participant attend every table’s discussion. Obviously, this would be impossible if there were many tables and not that much time, but it was noted that in some of the hypothetical applications such completeness would be desirable. Another concerned the two roles “host” and  “guest”. Are some people better suited for one particular role? Does being in one of these give a different perspective than being in the other? Would there be any way to allow people to serve in both capacities? All of these questions seemed interesting and informative, though any answers of course would have to be based on more experience and observations. As compared some of its “rivals”, World Café appears to have a less extensive record and literature. There seemed to be general agreement that it is a method worth using again, however.   Program Evaluation Margaret Carver conducted the Delta. Plus World Café is fun and interesting. It gave people a good way to meet and learn something about one another, something which doesn’t happen that much at Learning Group meetings. There was a lot of camaraderie. Lots of interesting ideas came out. Delta Twenty-four topics were probably too many; twelve would have done just as well. The presentation piece could have been abbreviated. Some more on the history of World Café would have been interesting. The purpose of the “visual aids” (to represent the food and music that would have existed had this been a “real” World Café) did not come through too clearly.    Additional Materials and Follow Up For the program for this meeting, including the agenda, click here. For a bibliography on the program topics and on World Cafe, click here. To express any ideas regarding follow up, contact Jim Murphy, programs@learninggroup.org.