The Power of Football

/0 Reacties/in , /door

abe-lenstra-stadion

Through *Meer dan Voetbal* and KNVB Expertise, I am involved in the research project “Kracht van Voetbal”. There is an increasing demand from professional football clubs, the KNVB (Royal Dutch Football Association), and the government (ministries and municipalities) for facts and figures that make the social power of football clear. Can we demonstrate that the UEFA Women’s Euro 2017 had a positive effect on women’s sports participation? What are the economic and social benefits of expanding the stadium or the youth academy?

maatschappelijk-voetbal

Greater insight into the effectiveness of measures allows football to optimize its efforts. From this perspective, the KNVB, *Stichting Meer dan Voetbal*, Eredivisie CV, and the Cooperative First Division have developed a simulator in collaboration with PwC that precisely clarifies the contribution of football to society, both economically and socially.

kracht van voetbal

With this simulator, professional football organizations (BVOs) can calculate their societal contributions, including both financial and non-financial value. This provides BVOs the opportunity to work together with their stakeholders to enhance their local power and, thereby, increase the impact of football on society.

Uber, Uber, and once again Uber

/0 Reacties/in , /door

Read about my experiences from the Management Consulting Week 2016 in Toronto

I attended on behalf of the Orde van Organisatieadviseurs (Ooa) during the fifth Management Consulting Week. Management consultants from all over the world gathered around the theme ‘Consulting 4.0, are you ready?’ How can we make our consulting practice more disruptive? How do I stay ahead of my competition? How do I respond to the rapidly changing needs of my clients? In this article, I discuss my experiences and lessons from this week.

Canadian Trends 

The conference kicked off with Duncan Stewart, a Canadian trend watcher employed by Deloitte. The speed at which new technologies are entering the world is immense. 3D printers, self-driving cars in Pittsburgh, Airbnb, Bitcoin, and so on. A characteristic of these developments is that humans and “middlemen” are being removed. 

“We seek calm amidst the chaos of devices.”

By the way, not all new technologies endure. Laptops and mobile phones will persist, but the iPad is on the decline. Despite all the new technological developments, we are still searching for physical meetings between clients and consultants. Amidst all the noise of new technologies, more and more Canadians are once again reading books and newspapers: a way to unwind from the online world.

Privacy and big data

There was a beautiful presentation by Ann Cavoukian. She is globally recognized as an authority on privacy. She called on companies to no longer see privacy as a compliance issue but to incorporate it into their core processes. Customers often feel that they do not have control over their own data. And that was her main point: the decision to share data must lie with the customer. Companies should proactively manage privacy. Improving privacy does not have to come at the expense of customer satisfaction or profits.

The decision to share data must lie with the customer – Ann Cavoukian

Disruptive Innovation and Uber

One of the highlights of the conference was the story of Ted Graham, Director of Innovation at General Motors. He shared his lessons in disruptive innovation, which he learned when he signed up to be an UberX driver. Within thirty minutes, he had registered online. And with an additional thirty-minute training session, he was ready to go, while a normal taxi driver must undergo a seventeen-day training program. The UberX driver receives immediate feedback after each ride. What many do not know, however, is that the driver also evaluates their customers.

Create a job instead of taking a job – Ted Graham

He applied these lessons at his previous employer—consulting firm PwC. The essence of consulting is the close relationship between the client and the consultant, sometimes lasting more than thirty years. Can we make it as transparent as Uber to determine who the best and most suitable consultant is? And what implications does this have for the trust relationship? Can we also allow clients to evaluate us and vice versa?

Brian Chesky – CEO Air Bnb

Blockchain

Next, Alex Tapscott, co-author of “Blockchain Revolution,” took us into the fascinating world of blockchain. Blockchain is the data structure behind the Bitcoin network. This unique data structure allows everyone in the world to trade with each other without the involvement of traditional third parties such as banks, notaries, accountants, and governments.

Why do we have to pay extra for foreign payments but not for sending emails abroad?

The data structure is as freely available, accessible, and programmable as the internet itself, but is unique, non-erasable, and remains in the hands of the customer rather than a middleman like a bank. Where in the “old world” important data is stored centrally and therefore vulnerable to hackers and cyberattacks, blockchain data is available decentrally, making it harder to hack.

What is the government doing?  

An important question that arose was: what is the government doing with all these new technological developments? They determine what is and isn’t allowed. Will the government trust these developments or stifle them? Is the government following trends, or is it responding with appropriate regulations? In Canada, the advice was for governments to try to engage proactively with developments. What do we allow and not allow? Toronto was mentioned as a good example. This city has already committed to allowing self-driving cars by 2020.

Response of the Big Four in Canada to Consulting 4.0

The directors of the large consulting firms (PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, and EY) also shared their reflections on Consulting 4.0. All consulting firms were working to break down the former boundaries between products and markets by assembling teams with much diversity. A clear trend shift is visible in the recruitment of new consultants. The focus is no longer solely on MBA students; there is now much more emphasis on students from other disciplines, such as technology, science, and the arts. Finally, there was discussion about establishing a joint pool of knowledge workers for all Big Four firms, allowing each firm to assemble its ideal team of specialists, tailored to the client’s assignment.

The impact of technological developments is overestimated in the short term but underestimated in the long term – Bill Gates

How do you apply the lessons from Uber to the consulting profession? 

Canada is putting disruptive technology on the agenda for management consultants. I see four takeaways for our profession:

  1. Because the customer and the UberX driver continuously provide feedback to each other, training for the new driver becomes less important. This means that training for new consultants will become less important and shift to “learning on the job” through continuous feedback. Will consulting firms then also be quicker to part ways with junior consultants?
  2. Without transparency about quality, you lose. We need to be more transparent about our knowledge, skills, and track record.

    Make sure your customers want to be with you – James Gilmore

  3. Disruptive team building around a customer question. Trend watchers, innovation specialists, artists, designers, and chemical specialists are employed and become part of the core processes of large consulting firms. The increasing complexity of client questions requires a diverse team.
  4. All these technologies, new toys, and the online world are nice, but I still appreciate a good book, a newspaper, and an unusually good conversation with my trusted advisor every now and then.

Bewaren

Bewaren

Bewaren

Bewaren

Bewaren

Bewaren

Bewaren

Bewaren

Bewaren

Bewaren

Process Facilitation in Somaliland

/0 Reacties/in , /door

At the end of the summer of 2016, I left for a week to Somaliland to carry out an assignment for the local non-governmental organization Gargaar (NGO). In this blog post, I will reflect on my experiences as a process facilitator. How do you approach such an assignment? What happens in the meantime? And how do you respond to that? My biggest question beforehand was: will my way of working be effective in Somaliland?

Gargaar asked me to develop a new strategy for the future. The goal of this NGO is to empower women through Self Help Groups (SHGs). This method was developed in India, where women from the poorest neighborhoods save money together in groups of 10 to 20 and then lend it to each other. With the borrowed money, women start their own businesses, such as repairing clothing or buying an extra goat to sell its milk in their small vegetable shop.

In five years, Gargaar has formed 162 women’s groups. In total, these groups have saved $230,000. I was asked: what are the strengths and weaknesses of our current strategy? What do our women need to further develop? How are we going to shape this movement? What is our vision for the future, and what funding sources can we tap into? For more background information, see my blog: https://www.theohermsen.org/?p=718

On Thursday, August 18, I land at 10 a.m. in the capital Hargeisa. Since I would only be staying for eight days, my plan is to make a quick start today and tomorrow. Together with my clients, we determine who we need to speak with and that we will conclude the week with a conference involving all stakeholders in one room. As I’m picked up from the airport, I realize that the weekend here is not Saturday and Sunday, but Friday and Saturday. In short, my plan for a quick start goes out the window. I’ll have to be smarter about planning my flights in the future.

So, I decide to make the most of what’s possible. I choose to use Thursday evening to meet with my client Mohammed Amin to discuss the plans for the upcoming week. Who can and should I speak with this week? What topics are important, and what ideas does Mohammed Amin have himself? We outline a methodology for the week ahead, and I decide that it’s time to bring out one of my souvenirs: stroopwafels and a Delft blue windmill. As a thank-you for entrusting me with this assignment and this first international experience, I wanted to give something back. A tip I took from Jelle Brandt Corstius’s book ‘Universal Travel Guide for Difficult Countries is to always bring souvenirs from your own country to give as gifts when traveling.

Throughout the week, I speak with various key stakeholders from Gargaar. Supported by a translator, I engage in conversations with several women from the Self Help Groups. I have extensive discussions with the staff of Gargaar, the Ministry of Social Affairs, other NGOs also working with the Self Help Groups method, and we meet with a bank director. These conversations provide me with a good understanding of the issues at hand. Throughout the week, “time” proves to be a very flexible concept. “Tomorrow, the driver will be at your door at 9 a.m.” practically means 10:00 or 10:30. “We need to be with the minister by 9:30 a.m. tomorrow,” actually meant we would only meet the minister the following day.

I spend the week at the “Dutch House” with three Dutch Somalilanders, one of whom is a good friend of mine. They work for the World Bank and for Spark, a Dutch NGO that develops education and entrepreneurship programs for young, ambitious people in developing countries (including Somaliland). I use them as an alternative source of information and as sounding boards. In retrospect, I saw it as a great advantage that I was not staying in a hotel but was lodging in the ‘Dutch House.’ This allowed me to flow with the rhythm of the country. I also learned—besides meeting many people—the rules and social customs.

I conclude my week with a conference where I invite 10 women from different Self Help Groups and three facilitators/staff members. A board member and the director of Gargaar are invited to think about the future of Gargaar. I facilitate the meeting. From the discussions during the past week, we identify three themes to be discussed during the conference.

The day begins like it often did that week: too late. All the women, facilitators, and staff are ready to start at 10 a.m. But we must wait a little longer for the director, who needs to discuss something with a board member. A half-hour later, we can start. The director opens the session with a brief introduction. I then briefly outline the program. Just before I finish, a cameraman from the national television walks in. It turns out the director invited him. The cameraman is so enthusiastic about the topic that he decides to stay for the entire conference. This means he often films me from just a meter away.

During the conference, everything I say is translated by one of the staff members. This gives you more time to think, but it also affects the tempo and flow of the meeting. You also lack direct interaction with the women, which means you must rely on the translator’s skills and the trust relationship between the translator and the women.

After the introduction, we break into three groups, each focusing on a theme. We conduct two rounds. Each session is facilitated by one of the facilitators, who also guides the Self Help Groups and knows the women well. It’s wonderful to see how much input comes from the women. They are clear about what they want and know well what they need to increase their impact.

After the first round, it’s 1 p.m.—time to pray. In terms of timing, this isn’t ideal for the conference. After a short break for prayer and lunch, we continue with a second round. We decide to gather the results from the three groups in a central session, where the facilitators play an important role. They all speak good English, which allows for a lot of input to come back from the group. While many valuable solutions are discussed, there isn’t much interaction between me and the women; it’s primarily a conversation between me and the facilitators.

Beforehand, I wasn’t entirely clear on how to conclude the conference. However, I had noticed that almost every group meeting earlier that week ended with a speech from the chairperson. At the end, the chairperson looked at me to see if I wanted to give a speech. So, we close with several speeches. First, a few women take the floor. The first woman thanks Gargaar for the opportunities it has given her and her community. The second woman emphasizes her newfound self-confidence, stating she never thought she could achieve these results with her group. The last woman expresses her dream of becoming a parliament member.

Then it’s my turn to give a speech. I start by thanking all attendees for their dedication and contributions today. I express my admiration for the achievements of Gargaar and the women present. I highlight that this movement of Self Help Groups is an essential building block for further development in Somaliland. I then decide to bring out my souvenirs again. I had found 10 Delft blue clogs at the local tourist office in Deventer. It’s a lovely moment to present them to the women. I express the hope that these Dutch clogs will symbolize the progress of your Self Help Groups, your communities, and Somaliland.

Finally, it’s the turn of my client, the director of Gargaar, Mohammed Amin. He thanks the women, expresses his satisfaction with the new direction for Gargaar, and concludes with several beautiful experiences he has gained over the past years. At exactly 2 p.m., we wrap up the meeting. I leave with a pounding headache; I became ill halfway through the week. But fortunately, it’s over now, and I can finally rest.

 

In Conclusion

It was a wonderful experience to do my work abroad. You see similarities in your approach and working methods compared to what you are used to in the Netherlands. Here, too, connecting with the culture and people is important. When that connection is made, there is room to add new perspectives. The biggest difference is the language barrier, particularly with the women. This means you have to connect in an indirect and non-verbal way. The relationship between me and the translator, as well as the trust relationship between the translator and the women, is essential. Did my way of working also work in Somaliland? I believe so. In those seven days, I adapted my style and methods to the situation and the people there. This allowed me to be of value. In short, I would wish everyone such an experience. You become very aware of your working style and the impact you have as a change agent on your environment.

Bewaren

Bewaren

Bewaren

The room layout, an important condition for a successful work session

/0 Reacties/in , /door

Do you know that feeling? You’re giving a presentation or facilitating a workshop, and that one annoying person dominates the entire meeting? This blog discusses what the ideal setup is for a successful workshop. What should you do and what should you avoid to steer a conversation filled with disruption and dominant individuals in the right direction? My answer: carefully consider the room layout!

Whenever I have to facilitate a workshop, I make sure to arrive well in advance. I then spend time rearranging tables and chairs. From experience, I know how important a good setup is for a meaningful conversation. In this blog, I’ll share the lessons I’ve learned from experienced process facilitators.

A well-known example is Steenbergen, where the mayor was booed by his constituents over the potential arrival of an asylum center in the municipality. In the photo above, the mayor is seen speaking to the audience from a podium behind a lectern, using a microphone.

In this theater-style setup, the residents listen to the mayor’s speech. What happens here—and what typically happens in this setup—is a situation of 100 against 1. In such a scenario, as a facilitator, it is almost impossible to influence the process. One dominant speaker stamps their authority on the meeting at the beginning of the evening. From that moment on, the evening is already lost, and your role as a facilitator is diminished. You can no longer allow nuanced voices and timid individuals to speak.

To facilitate this process better, it’s important to break the group into smaller segments. A good example of this is the G1000 meeting in Amersfoort. This allows more people to have their say, including moderate and timid individuals. Additionally, you will have tables where the mood is “for” and tables where the mood is “against.” Instead of having the opponents direct their comments at the facilitator, you, as the facilitator, ensure they address each other, allowing arguments for and against to be exchanged.

An important lesson here is to keep your introduction as a facilitator brief and get the audience working as quickly as possible. You can do this with a good, simple open question: How can we help refugees in our municipality? Based on this open question, people will start discussing at their tables. You walk around and observe which tables are “for” and which are “against.” Additionally, you gather various ideas and arguments. Before you open the conversation with the audience to share the outcomes from the discussions, you, as the facilitator, decide: which table should I start with? Should I begin with the tables full of angry opponents or with the table that has a more nuanced view?

What open question will you use to engage your group?

Kortom, context en in de inrichting van de ruimte zijn belangrijk voor het begeleiden van een goed proces. Het geeft je als procesbegeleider mogelijkheden om te interveniëren en het proces te begeleiden. Wat geldt voor een zaal met 1000 mensen, geldt ook voor groep van 30 mensen of 15 mensen. Ook dan zorg ik er voor dat mensen in kleine groepjes in gesprek gaan. Niets is zo dodelijk als praatgrage, dominante boze deelnemer, die jouw hele proces in de wielen rijdt.

Democratization of Change Management: A Good Conversation with Hans Vermaak

/0 Reacties/in , /door


February 22, 2018. A cold winter day in Amsterdam. Four thirty-somethings (see box) are in conversation with their colleague Hans Vermaak (56) about his new book: Everyone Changes, Now It’s Our Turn. Not a classic interview, but an unusually good conversation about the field of Change Management, its democratization, professional standards, and how to measure oneself. In this article, we aim to make you feel as if you are sitting at the table, engaging in a conversation with ‘the most influential consultant in the Netherlands.’

After a warm welcome at Stadhouderskade, we take our seats at a sturdy wooden table by the window, overlooking the canal. Simon gets straight to the point: “Here we are with the most influential consultant in the Netherlands.” “Yes, elected by an inner circle and selected by Management Team,” Hans adds immediately. We are not gathered here to celebrate this accolade, but to exchange thoughts with him about the state of our profession. The immediate catalyst for this meeting is Hans Vermaak’s recently published book.

Does Everyone Change?

First, a quick question from Leonard about the title of the book. “Does the phrase Everyone Changes imply that our profession will eventually become obsolete?”

“On the contrary! I only believe that it is very complicated to initiate ten changes for the rest of the organization from a staff department on the third floor, while local issues provide daily value. Try working iteratively on such a local task from three floors up; it simply won’t succeed. What applies to such a staff department also applies to consultants or policymakers. Change is a local skill. […] My plea is: change management should be part of everyone’s profession, just like collaboration or learning.”

Jostein: “So you’re leaning more towards the education of the worker rather than the strengthening of the change management expert?”

“Both. I would like to maintain that tension. Because some people, including you and me, specialize in change management, we can provide insights and language to others: that is ammunition for education. Education of the worker is important, especially if we don’t want to settle for mediocrity that can arise when participation is used as a dogma without setting conditions for expertise.” […] “The fact that you take people seriously in local contexts does not mean you lower the bar. And that makes it exciting: taking people very seriously in what they have to contribute while also confronting them each time to see if the ideas are sharp enough and the behavior strong enough to make a difference.”

Theo is curious about the role of the change manager when everyone claims the field of change management for themselves.

“I brought something along,” says Hans. He takes out two sheets filled with short texts and small drawings marked in various colors. Hans explains that the Scientific Council of the Ooa, of which he is a member, focuses on the trend that change agents are becoming increasingly decentralized in their annual theme. This implies that managers, staff, and consultants must primarily empower others in the organization to become change agents. “They themselves are often no longer the main change agents. You often find them low in the organization, closely involved with their own issues. Real change actually takes place locally, where people are close enough to see what works and can take action themselves. That doesn’t mean that the consultant becomes obsolete. When you empower people decentrally, they naturally ask: how does that work? That’s where you can help as a consultant, manager, or staff member.”

Theo: “The third part of the book focuses on the change agent themselves. This section is relatively larger compared to the issues of serving (part one) and guiding the environment (part two). Did you deliberately give the change agent such a prominent place in your book?”

“That’s correct; I elevate those who tackle change in their own environment to the main character in this book. Before I started writing, I walked around for a year with a notepad, asking: What are the most important lessons? Three different playing fields emerged. The first playing field is that of concrete practice. Before you know it, that slips away constantly, while that is precisely where it happens. That needed to be very prominent. That part required extra effort from me as a writer because that local practice is everyday and can easily be overlooked. Yet the issues there may be small-scale but are precisely complex. We must learn to ‘unpack’ the efficacy of the everyday. We tend to make it too small every time.

On the Other Hand, Part Two, which discusses what is needed in your organization, quickly becomes too vast. All that organizing jargon, plans, structures, and policies. I wanted to stay focused on the essence and had to remind myself: ‘Less, less, less.’ When you honestly reflect on what you, as a person, need on the local playing field to get tasks done, as well as in the organizational playing field to ‘take others along,’ it can create a slight sense of panic. You realize that you need to come from a strong background. From there, part three emerged: How do you deal with your own learning and development, fully aware that you can never know or have to know everything? You still need to come somewhat prepared to perform on multiple playing fields because that is what is expected of you. Or you expect it from yourself…

“A Significant Part of the Job is Collaborating on Issues”

Seen as an Expert

How do you handle the title of the change expert who has a ready-made answer for every issue, Leonard wants to know. Simon makes the question more personal: “How do you handle it in a smaller setting with a client who says: Hans, I’ve read your book. You’re the most influential consultant in the Netherlands. I have a problem, how do I solve this?”

“I have blunt ways and subtle ways. In your example, I would start with the blunt way. No idea. I don’t know you. I don’t know what you’ve experienced. I don’t know what you’re struggling with. And you would never believe me if a standard answer came out of my mouth, as if you were the same as everyone else. Would you trust someone who knows how to solve a problem in five minutes that you’ve been struggling with for 20 years? That’s not credible, right? Such a blunt response can fit when you’re being cornered by your client, and there’s something aggressive about it; you’re put in a corner with the idea: You’ve studied this. Then you have to fight your way out of that corner. A subtle response fits when someone shares dilemmas: There is pressure from above to deliver a change plan within three weeks, while the issues are stubborn. Then I would be inclined to help them legitimize with their leaders that a delay is necessary to make space for diagnosis. I wouldn’t go overboard with a lengthy analysis process because that’s unsellable since the people from ‘above’ are anxious. I would make it an iterative process: we would do an initial diagnosis in three weeks, with a strong suspicion of what the change strategy is, but it wouldn’t be fully developed yet. This iterative approach fits this kind of issue because you only really get to know it by working on it. I would thus go along with the desired pace while simultaneously making diagnosis a fixed part of the task with local change agents in the drivers’ seat.”

Jostein: “Can I make it even blunter?”

“Yes, please!”

Jostein: “For all the people who aren’t Hans Vermaak, what would you advise them? Especially in a setting where the client is increasingly competent, makes their own diagnosis, and says: I don’t want such a process proposal; I want a substantive idea for my issue.”

In addition to the blunt and subtle approaches, Hans invents a third variant: “If they’re that competent, then that’s fine. You can certainly test together—especially if they see you as an expert: That’s great that you’ve figured it out; tell me! Where does your confidence come from that this solution will work? Has it worked in the past? In the best case, they’re spot on, and you help them substantiate that. In other cases, you reveal and problematize the proposed solutions as part of the problem. This creates space to puzzle together again.

And of course, you’re right: with more experience, you gain more authority, regardless of whether you’re good. That’s quite dangerous. Because that’s more of a prison than a liberation.”

“Do you experience that? That as you write more books and become more well-known in the field, it hinders you?” Theo asks.

“Yes, I do. It requires more homework to avoid being placed in expert mode. Demythologizing requires more work as people attribute more authority to you. They do this for good reason, as it alleviates their uncertainty.

A significant part of the job is indeed collaborating on issues. So I have to make extra effort to continue doing that; otherwise, I get cornered again. And I’m not alone: this applies to many people on whom authority can be projected due to position or experience. It requires ‘experts’ to do different homework to not blur their limitations and to display everyday behavior.”

Simon: “That sounds fantastic coming from you…”

“You don’t agree, do you?”

Simon: “No, because you have that reputation, which allows you to easily play with that prison. You can easily create freedom at the client’s table because of your name.”

“That’s true. More experience and reputation give me more legitimacy for that.”

Theo: “The other side is also true, right? You are the most influential consultant, you’ve written books, you walk in, and everyone looks at you expectantly: He knows the solution.”

“The ability to ask questions, to doubt, to investigate is needed precisely to become more certain about what’s going on and your role in it. That’s why I also recognize myself in the four roles that Leonard sees as part of his work practice: consultant, researcher, teacher, and writer. They reinforce each other. The practices in which I consult and research are always richer and messier than the theory I read, write, or teach. And that keeps me honest, as long as I continuously adjust my agenda accordingly. If I don’t do that, I risk getting too caught up in the lecture and training circuit, with the risk of believing too much in my own stories and becoming detached from the lived experience.”

“Would you trust someone who has a solution within five minutes for a problem you’ve been struggling with for 20 years?”

Measuring Yourself

Theo is curious about how Hans evaluates himself as a professional during his work: “On which dimensions do you measure yourself?”

Hans has prepared for this question: “I use four metrics for myself. The first is utility: does what I say or do help? This includes explanatory power (does this explain something?), action value (does this lead to action?), and resonance (is this recognized?). The second is: is it correct? This is about validity and substantiation: not proclaiming personal opinions but doing your homework in terms of reasoning, literature, and so on. The third metric is: is there still discovery here? This concerns creativity and an exploratory attitude. Am I still puzzling? Is it still somewhat original? Have we created something entirely different from it?

According to Leonard, you can do just fine with the first two criteria: “If something is correct and helpful, but not new, isn’t that okay?” Hans responds, “For me, it feels wrong if the third criterion is missing, because I believe that situations are unique. The moment I notice I’m doing the same thing three times, I think: What’s going on here? Am I still looking at what this situation needs? Am I still genuinely collaborating with others? Am I not discovering anything here anymore? That doesn’t feel right. Fortunately, I do little of the same things.”

Leonard asks, “Is discovery a criterion because you enjoy it, or because it serves the issue at hand?”

Hans replies, “If you’ve raised two children and think with the third: we’ll just replicate that, then it goes wrong, I think. It works the same way in organizations: different teams are simply not the same. I believe you have a point that learning is as essential to me as breathing. So there is a bit of bias there. By the way, there’s a fourth metric of discipline and reflexivity: incorporating evaluations and reflections, having someone shadow you, asking clients afterward, describing your experiences and allowing others to critique them. Taking the time and precision for that. I like to advocate that every valuable task has two layers: that of performance and that of learning.”

Leonard asks, “Is there one of these four elements that you really have to pay attention to in practice because it doesn’t come naturally to you?”

After a long silence, Hans responds, “Not anymore.”

“What metric do you have to work hardest on?”

Hans answers, “I think bringing precision to the ‘is it correct?’ part, the substantiation and reading. At the beginning of my career, I would just be gathering information until late at night if I had to present something the next day. However, that’s not good enough for a really complicated issue. I’ve significantly cut back on billable hours, for example, to have enough and timely breaks. That’s especially necessary for issues that require a lot of homework and thus time. I see reading as part of the task. For me, writing a book also falls into this category: of course, I want to reach people, but first and foremost, it’s a learning experience for me to articulate insights and create language. Writing a book also means spending a third less time on deepening my knowledge in a year… That’s just discipline. And it pays off completely in terms of…”

Theo interjects, “Book sales!”

Simon adds, “Lectures, status, titles!”

Hans replies, “I love you guys too, but I don’t always believe it…”

On the edge of innovation

/0 Reacties/in , /door

On the edge of innovation

On Making Choices When It Gets Really Exciting


This article appeared in the Journal for Guidance Studies (2019 8 (4), 50-57). In this article, I describe and reflect on two exciting moments in an advisory assignment. I find myself, in the heat of the moment, facing a fundamental choice as a facilitator. Why do I step forward in one situation and step back in another? As a facilitator of groups, I prepare sessions well. However, the most exciting and valuable moments cannot be prepared in advance. That’s when you face a choice. Intuitively, you do something. Or nothing. In this article, I investigate two moments. The context is a faculty at a university where the collaboration and cohesion among professors are under pressure.

I begin the article with a brief outline of the context. I will then zoom in on two situations. I sketch my plan in advance (intended), describe what happened (actual), and describe my thoughts and doubts during the exciting moment. I conclude with several working principles that help me when it gets really exciting.

  1. THE CONTEXT:

Over the years, a faculty at a university has increasingly begun to work in a multidisciplinary manner. A key goal of the dean is to promote that collaboration so that the walls between the organizational units disappear and the quality and focus of research and education increase.

From the recently conducted self-evaluation, I understand that there is a significant struggle in securing research funding, finding the right balance between research, education, administrative tasks, and management, collaboration among the organizational units, and how decision-making occurs around budgets and appointments.

Their Question:

The question they ask me is whether the current organizational structure is still appropriate and whether this structure is the most optimal for conducting good research and good education, as well as for strengthening internal cohesion.

My Answer:

I notice that the client is particularly struggling with the ‘how.’ How does it actually work within our faculty? How does what happens come about? The ‘what’ seems to be reasonably in order at first glance, according to their self-evaluation. A working group has been established to address this theme, consisting of seven people within the faculty.

The first question posed to me is to look at the current structure of the faculty. I tell my client that adjusting the structure often does not bring about better collaboration and cohesion; on the contrary (Vermaak, 2017; Vermaak & De Caluwe, 2019). As an alternative, I propose that we first try to understand the dynamics of the faculty, between the units, and the dynamics between the heads of the units and management. In the first meeting, I make a preliminary diagnosis of this dynamic. Why do things happen as they do? What happens if we do nothing? What makes them run? What pays off, and who rewards it? What needs to change, and how can we reward that? I notice from the answers I receive that people do not have immediate responses to these questions.

I therefore propose an approach where we first work together to understand the dynamics (where do we get in each other’s way and where can we capture more synergy). The goal is to make a good diagnosis. Based on that, we can eliminate obstacles or stimulate collaboration. If it turns out that the current structure is problematic, it is always possible to make adjustments. But in that order. Structure follows content and dynamics.

My Proposal for a Concrete Approach:

My proposal is to investigate the dynamics of collaboration in various places within the faculty. An initial intervention is to organize a working session with a representative group from the faculty, focusing on the central theme of collaboration. This helps me get to know the issue and the dynamics between the main players. Based on this session, we will gain a better understanding of what is happening here and can determine our subsequent strategy based on that.

SITUATION 1: A WORK SESSION ON COLLABORATION

Situation 1: In Advance

Situation 1 is an afternoon meeting in which we have invited a representative group from the faculty to discuss the theme of “collaboration.” Based on their own case studies, we try to get an idea of how current collaboration is proceeding. We also examine whether there is a problem, where bottlenecks are located, and what opportunities for improvement exist. It is also intended that everyone formulates a concrete experiment on how they can contribute to improving collaboration.

The program serves as a guideline for me. I keep space to deviate from the plan if the situation or issue demands it. At the same time, my client also needs a clear narrative for the participants about why they are invited to this session.

Situation 1: During

The session initially proceeds according to plan. Based on their own case studies, the participants engage in an interesting discussion about how collaboration works for them. They talk harmoniously about meetings where everyone discusses the content but where the process can sometimes be overlooked. They also discuss their hesitance to claim others’ time. Doubts about the added value of collaboration come up. Is it necessary? After all, individual assessments are made.

Nothing seems to be wrong. Not even when I ask them to formulate their own experiment to bring about improvement. They come up with great experiments. Until I ask them: what do you need to continue with this? Then the session becomes tense. Someone responds, “I came here to think along, not to contribute to that.” Another says, “No, I’m not going to do that; management should do it.” Management responds, “It’s not about what the faculty can do for you, but what you can do for the faculty.” I immediately sense: this is what it’s about; the issue unfolds before my eyes. Initially, the above questions focus on me. But I literally decide to take a step back. Under the premise that this is apparently the conversation they need to have with each other.

What’s Going Through My Mind?

  • I literally take a step back. The conversation is about how they collaborate with each other. I also have doubts. Am I doing this right? How does my client react? Because they are also coming under fire. Yet this is also the conversation they need to have with each other. My role is to facilitate them. To ensure that they can conduct the conversation in an orderly manner.
  • My mind is working overtime. I see all sorts of things happening. People who do take the floor or deliberately do not. Filters and social desirability are increasingly being set aside, and responses to one another become more direct and intense. They no longer spare each other. I also think about the issue of collaboration. I notice that they find it easier to talk about and analyze (reflection) than to do something about the issue (action).All my gears are turning at full speed. At the same time, I am present in the here and now, facilitating the conversation. Making sure everyone gets a chance to speak. Ensuring they let each other finish. Following the conversation, summarizing it, and asking people for clarification. But I also see that the end time is now approaching quickly. However, it is now also the case that the real conversation comes to the fore in this session. But if no one starts that conversation, we will just keep going a little longer.

What unfolds is an interesting and heated discussion about collaboration. Where does ownership for collaboration lie? Who should take action on this? Should the teachers and professors do this, or should the dean? The question is also raised whether it is even a problem or merely a wish of the dean. It also becomes clear that there are different needs for collaboration. Some participants see more benefit in it than others, and how do we deal with that? Finally, someone notes that they gained a lot of energy from the first part of the session, but that their energy has now dropped to zero. I mention that this is the conversation that they should be having. 

What’s Going Through My Mind?

  • The remark that “energy has dropped to zero” resonates with me as well. I am facilitating the session, and I have prepared it together with my client. I ponder: do I want to end the session at a low point, or do I want people to leave feeling good? I feel in the moment: hey, here’s the issue. This is what it’s about. Happy ending or low point, it’s ultimately about discussing what needs to be discussed, right? Isn’t it strange that if the issue turns out to be tough, the session becomes tough as well? What helps me is that I mentally reframe the moment of high tension from something negative to something valuable. That helps.
  • I also remind myself that I am not solely responsible for a successful session. We are responsible together. I made this clear with the group beforehand, agreeing that there is plenty of room to co-create and adjust the program. During the session, I reiterated this by checking with the group whether we were still having the right conversation and also adjusted a program component with the group, as it did not sufficiently come to the fore. Even now that it’s tense, the same applies to me.

It is now late, and we have run over by half an hour, at which point several participants indicate that they really need to leave. The dean thanks everyone. In close consultation with the group, we agree to take a good look at an appropriate next step. I indicate that my intention was to organize three more of these sessions. However, my conclusion from this session is that we still need to examine this carefully. We will come back to you with a follow-up proposal. That is accepted. After the session, I discuss with my client that I will evaluate the session with a number of participants and discuss the approach for the next steps with them.

SITUATION 2: A ‘HEATED’ MEETING OF PROFESSORS

Situation 2: In Advance

A few months later, I am present at the meeting of the board. The heads of the organizational units meet monthly. The dean, my client, has asked me to be present as an observer. I am the last item on the agenda and have been asked to provide an update on the progress of my advisory assignment regarding collaboration within the faculty. My client dreads this meeting every month. There is a lot of hassle, conflicts, and the conversation during this meeting often progresses very slowly. She asks me to be present because this is where the dynamics surrounding collaboration are most pronounced. The language of communication is English.

Situation 2: During

During the meeting, a conversation about personnel derails. The dean and a professor get into a conflict over a case regarding the appointment of a university lecturer. It escalates, and the rest of the meeting watches. As an observer, I do not feel authorized to comment on this. I decide to come back to this at the last agenda item, where my name is mentioned.

Moments later, another conflict arises between the dean and another professor. This time it is about a fund to stimulate educational policy. The conversation completely spirals out of control. Worse than the previous conflict. Even mutual trust is called into question. Things go from bad to worse, and they cannot find a resolution.

“I have had to bite my lip a few times, but now I feel the need to intervene in the conversation. What is happening here? I see two people disagreeing and not being able to resolve it. And this happened already at the agenda item about personnel policy.” The dean and the professor reflect on what is happening but fall back into the old conversation. I decide to intervene by summarizing what they are both saying and emphasizing their (good) intentions. “You (the professor, TH) want to protect the dean so she can make decisions herself. That she has to disappoint people within the faculty who do not receive funding. Let a committee handle that. You (dean) have worked hard on the memo, which also received a lot of criticism in the previous meeting. You have tried to address all the points as best as you can, and you are receiving the same criticism again in this meeting. That is frustrating.” The conversation then becomes increasingly reflective.

Gradually, the tension subsides. The professor indicates that he could also have complimented the dean on the work she has done. The dean removes the trust issue from the table. A reflective conversation begins about the functioning of the board. One member notes that it is good to occasionally have a meta-conversation: how do we conduct this conversation? Another mentions that it is important to have clear policies. Much of the policy regarding personnel and budgets is unclear and leads to confusion and hassle. Another says that we should also have a vision together about what kind of faculty we want to be and what our hiring policy is. At the end of the conversation, the dean notes that she always goes to this meeting with trepidation. This resonates with the others. “That cannot be the intention.” I notice that the sting has come out of the conversation. They decide to move on to the next agenda item.

What’s going through my mind?

  • I feel the tension in my throat as I open my mouth. So, I begin with the sentence: “I’ve had to bite my lip a few times, but I feel the need to engage in the conversation now.” This gives me the space to see if my involvement will be tolerated. It seems they accept it. This is further reinforced when two other participants join me in helping to de-escalate the conversation.
  • In the second conflict that arises, I think: I can’t just let this happen. I am indeed an observer, but my assignment is about collaboration, and I wasn’t invited to this meeting for nothing. So whether I want to or not, I am also a player, right? What also plays a role in my consideration is that it seems my client shows more courage by my presence.
  • During the conversation, I primarily act as a kind of translator and interpreter. People keep going around in circles and are unable to reach a resolution. I try to prompt reflection on the conversation, stepping away from the content. They no longer listen to each other and make their own interpretations of what the other is saying. Therefore, I attempt to objectify those interpretations through questioning and validation. When I listen to you, do you mean this? If that’s what you mean, what effect does it have on you? You can see existing perceptions of the other person change right before your eyes. How do I look at you? How do you look at me? And how do we interact with each other? At that moment, my doubt about whether I am allowed to do this has vanished.

When we reach the agenda item for which I was originally invited, I ask: “Would you like to evaluate this meeting, or do you want to hear the status regarding collaboration?” The overall desire is not to evaluate the meeting anymore. “We’ve done enough of that now.” The mood has returned to normal. At least for a moment, it seems.

WHAT HELPS ME WHEN IT GETS REALLY TENSE?

While writing this article, I’ve also come to some working principles that help me when things get really tense during a session. What helps you in tense situations?

In advance:

Who knows the enemy and himself will not be endangered in a hundred battles;
Who knows the enemy but not himself will sometimes win and sometimes lose;
Who knows neither the enemy nor himself will be every battle in danger. (Sun Tzu)

Good Preparation

Thorough substantive preparation is fundamental for me. My motto: prepare 100% to let go of 80% and respond to what happens (Von Clausewitz, 1982). Prior to the session, I have carefully thought about the design of the program. I’ve formulated several working hypotheses about the issue based on the submitted cases. I also consider several scenarios that could occur, from the worst-case scenario to the most optimistic.

Being Clean: Your Body as a Resonating Chamber

I knew in advance that these wouldn’t be simple sessions. Nowadays, I no longer schedule any appointments before a tense session. My focus is solely on that one difficult session. I also make sure to arrive well in advance to set up the space and mentally prepare myself for the session. It helps me to be “empty and clear” and fully attentive to the group and their question (Burger et al., 2019). During the session, I want to use my body as a resonating chamber to feel what is happening. I aim to observe without bias and postpone my judgments. I once read my emails during such a session, which significantly distracted me. It really took some time to get back “into” it.

Consciously Choosing a Position as a Facilitator

On my way to the session, I ask myself: why am I here? WHY am I here? Why am I HERE? (Vermaak, 2017). I often ask myself this question in advance. It helps me to choose my position in a session and also helps me to stay grounded at the most tense moments.

During

Prepare your war and your battle plan well.

Forget this plan after the first skirmish.

Act and respond to the situation that arises with dedication and discipline.”

(Von Clausewitz)

Humble Inquiry – Together in Not Knowing

The fundamental attitude I often revert to in the heat of battle is humble inquiry (Schein, 2013). It’s about coming together in not knowing. It creates space to safely explore together: why are things happening as they are? Where multiple answers can emerge, or better said, where everyone has their own answer (Spanjersberg, 2016). As a facilitator, I ensure that there is room for a safe atmosphere where multiple truths can coexist. There is no right or wrong. I guide the process of exploring, questioning, and listening because that’s where I often see things go wrong.

Staying in Your Place

It’s great to ‘consciously choose your position’ in advance, but staying in your position or place is much more challenging (Kloosterboer, 2015). Especially when things get really tense. In these two situations, I find myself pushed out of my position at different moments. The client system places the issue or their hesitance to act regarding collaboration on my plate. “You’re the expert; just tell us.” By staying in touch with myself (why am I here?) and sensing where their hesitance lies, I can remain in my place and also refrain from taking over their space. This allows them to take it themselves. By asking questions, identifying possibilities, or taking a step back. By letting them converse with each other and allowing themselves to experience the discomfort. I must also resist the group’s desire for me, as the facilitator, to provide a ready-made answer. After all, it’s their issue, and I’m facilitating them in solving it.

Afterward

For everything, there is the right time. One can only master the timing of strategy through extensive practice – Musashi.

Just as a swordsman sharpens his own tools, so does the carpenter – Musashi.

Reflection, Reflection, Reflection

After both sessions, I conducted an extensive reflection. With my client, several participants, but also with some colleagues and my wife. To better understand: “What happened here?” That is the most important thing for me. It helps me to critically assess my own functioning and choices and sharpen my intuition. So that I better understand what occurred. How I can take that into the next moment when I have to make a choice in a split second. There is no time for that in the heat of battle. Therefore, my conviction is that the art of facilitation primarily consists of practicing, logging flight hours, reflecting on that, and honing your plan, approach, and intuition.

Why Do I Do This?

That is the question that occupies me the most after writing this article. Why do I “choose” this kind of assignments? It takes a lot of energy to be present. You see, feel, and think so much. I feel the pain and helplessness of the participants. It takes a lot of ‘detox time’ afterward to be a good father or partner at home. Yet often, satisfaction prevails. When two people have a bit more understanding for each other or when it’s possible to extract the sting from the conversation. When you can genuinely contribute as a facilitator. I’ve also discovered that this kind of high tension suits me and brings out my best.

What I still need to do is improve in facilitating these types of sessions. For that, I especially need and want to log more flight hours under high tension. To deepen professionally what good forms and designs are for discussing and managing conflicts. I would also like to be able to switch myself on and off better. So that I’m less nervous beforehand and can empty out and be clean again faster afterward. Right now, the session lingers on me for a long time, and I often worry all night. Will that ever decrease, or is it just part of it?

Theo Hermsen (1982) is an independent consultant, vice chair of the Order of Organization Advisors (Ooa), and affiliated as a lecturer with SIOO, HAN, and Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences.

References:

  • Burger, Y. & Roos, A. (2019). Containment in executive coaching; a practical theory. Journal of Facilitation Studies, 8(2), 30-37.
  • Clausewitz, C. von (1982). On War. Colchester: Penguin Classics.
  • Kloosterboer, P.P. & De Vries, D.P. (2019). Organizational development; working with difference and safety. Journal of Facilitation Studies, 8(2), 12-22.
  • Kloosterboer, P.P. (2015). Advising from the whole, the vital value of internal advice. Deventer: Vakmedianet.
  • Moerkerken, S. (2019). More precise interventions in complex change issues. In Kessener, B. & Van Oss, L. (2019). More than the Sum of Its Parts. Deventer: Vakmedianet.
  • Musashi, M. (1999). The Strategy of the Samurai. Amsterdam: Karnak.
  • Spanjersberg, M. et al. (2016). Systems thinking in practice. Utrecht: Stili Novi.
  • Schein, E.H. (2009). Helping. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
  • Schein, E.H. (2013). Humble Inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
  • Sun Tzu (2005). The Art of War. Utrecht: Kosmos Publishers.
  • Vermaak, H. (2009). Enjoying tough questions. Deventer: Kluwer.
  • Vermaak, H. (2017). Everyone changes, now it’s our turn. Deventer: Vakmedianet.