Not sure if anyone find the sharing interesting or useful. but for completeness, the following are the key learning for today:
1. 4-Player Model - What are the roles we should play and how should we behave?
2. Abilene Paradox - What is the trip to Abilene and how can we avoid it?
3. System Thinking - The R and B loops. Problem solving using the loop models.
4-Player Model
This is another model from the Peter Senge, in the book "The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook". This model is a way in which a team can have Generative Conversation by playing out four different types of roles:
1. Mover - initiator, offer a position or direction to the group. This is the person who want put a new message across to the group.
2. Opposer - the skeptic, challenging the action of the mover. This is the "devil's advocate". However, this person is more than just the inquirer.
3. Follower - agreeing with either the mover or opposer. This is the role to "complete the sentence" or to complete the argument.
4. Bystander - observer, the deep listener, who critically witness the actions of others, and offer perspective.
Sometimes, as leaders of the team, it is good to be the bystander and speak up at the critical moment after listening to each party. However, if the team lacks initiatives, the leader should be the mover to get things going.
Abilene Paradox
It describes the situation when the action of people in groups are all in direct contradiction of what they want. Abilene Paradox is a form of groupthink observed by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in his 1988 book The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management. The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdote in the book which Harvey used to elucidate the paradox. You will understand the paradox better from the extract of the video shown today.
The typical trip to Abilene can be observed in the following manner:
1. Action Anxiety - The group are unwilling and worried about putting what they want into action.
2. Negative Fantasy - They imagine the worst things that can happen if they were to disagree with the current situation.
3. Real Risk - Afraid of being embarrassed.
4. Fear of Separation - Afraid to be dislodged from the group.
5. Confusion of Fantasy and Reality - Unable to differentiate between the actual situation and imagination.
6. Blame (others) - When things start to fail and the paradox collapse, the individuals start to blame others for the result.
7. Collusion - Individuals agree to continue to mislead others in the situation.
8. Blaming the Leader - Individuals put the blame solely on the leader and seek comfort in each other from the blame.
Often we can fall into Abilene Paradox when nobody is willing to disagree and too afraid to get into trouble for speaking their mind. However, problems start for "not saying" and in the end, they may have to be responsible for it. One of the coursemate provided a real life example. In the recent decision to refurbish the office, everyone agreed to paint the walls green and doors in dark brown. However, after the painting was completed, everyone hated the colours. When they met again, he found out that they did not like the colour but somehow had agreed with it when they thought that others liked it, in order to be polite and not being a "pain".
Such incidents can be avoided if individuals assess the real risks involved for not speaking. They will need to "own up" and speak the truth. Confronting the group with the issue is necessary to prevent from "making the trip to Abilene".
System Thinking
A quick search on the Internet, you'll be able to find the methodology for Causal Loop in System Thinking. It is important to clarify the variables in the model. Individuals may have different interpretations and variables may have multiple meanings collapsed into one. By changing mental models, the links can be changed from "O" opposite to "S" support, or vice versa. A Balancing-Loop can become a Reinforcing-Loop to create the desired effect. Boosters can be added to loops to change to desired effects as well. Different loops inter-play and things can become complicated. There is also difficulty in managing the links (mental models) and a reinforcing-loop which spirals upwards can spirals downwards when one variable fail and change. In presenting the model for implementation, it is more convincing and better to do it backwards using the causes.
The two days FOL module of the three-week intermediate project management and system engineering course had been really fruitful. Although most of the concepts I had learned before in the System Engineering, Project Management, and Knowledge Management modules during my MOT masters course, it was really useful to refresh, dive deeper, practice and share with coursemates. That will be all for my sharing as the course will switch to domain specific topics tomorrow.
1. 4-Player Model - What are the roles we should play and how should we behave?
2. Abilene Paradox - What is the trip to Abilene and how can we avoid it?
3. System Thinking - The R and B loops. Problem solving using the loop models.
4-Player Model
This is another model from the Peter Senge, in the book "The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook". This model is a way in which a team can have Generative Conversation by playing out four different types of roles:
1. Mover - initiator, offer a position or direction to the group. This is the person who want put a new message across to the group.
2. Opposer - the skeptic, challenging the action of the mover. This is the "devil's advocate". However, this person is more than just the inquirer.
3. Follower - agreeing with either the mover or opposer. This is the role to "complete the sentence" or to complete the argument.
4. Bystander - observer, the deep listener, who critically witness the actions of others, and offer perspective.
Sometimes, as leaders of the team, it is good to be the bystander and speak up at the critical moment after listening to each party. However, if the team lacks initiatives, the leader should be the mover to get things going.
Abilene Paradox
It describes the situation when the action of people in groups are all in direct contradiction of what they want. Abilene Paradox is a form of groupthink observed by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in his 1988 book The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management. The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdote in the book which Harvey used to elucidate the paradox. You will understand the paradox better from the extract of the video shown today.
The typical trip to Abilene can be observed in the following manner:
1. Action Anxiety - The group are unwilling and worried about putting what they want into action.
2. Negative Fantasy - They imagine the worst things that can happen if they were to disagree with the current situation.
3. Real Risk - Afraid of being embarrassed.
4. Fear of Separation - Afraid to be dislodged from the group.
5. Confusion of Fantasy and Reality - Unable to differentiate between the actual situation and imagination.
6. Blame (others) - When things start to fail and the paradox collapse, the individuals start to blame others for the result.
7. Collusion - Individuals agree to continue to mislead others in the situation.
8. Blaming the Leader - Individuals put the blame solely on the leader and seek comfort in each other from the blame.
Often we can fall into Abilene Paradox when nobody is willing to disagree and too afraid to get into trouble for speaking their mind. However, problems start for "not saying" and in the end, they may have to be responsible for it. One of the coursemate provided a real life example. In the recent decision to refurbish the office, everyone agreed to paint the walls green and doors in dark brown. However, after the painting was completed, everyone hated the colours. When they met again, he found out that they did not like the colour but somehow had agreed with it when they thought that others liked it, in order to be polite and not being a "pain".
Such incidents can be avoided if individuals assess the real risks involved for not speaking. They will need to "own up" and speak the truth. Confronting the group with the issue is necessary to prevent from "making the trip to Abilene".
System Thinking
A quick search on the Internet, you'll be able to find the methodology for Causal Loop in System Thinking. It is important to clarify the variables in the model. Individuals may have different interpretations and variables may have multiple meanings collapsed into one. By changing mental models, the links can be changed from "O" opposite to "S" support, or vice versa. A Balancing-Loop can become a Reinforcing-Loop to create the desired effect. Boosters can be added to loops to change to desired effects as well. Different loops inter-play and things can become complicated. There is also difficulty in managing the links (mental models) and a reinforcing-loop which spirals upwards can spirals downwards when one variable fail and change. In presenting the model for implementation, it is more convincing and better to do it backwards using the causes.
The two days FOL module of the three-week intermediate project management and system engineering course had been really fruitful. Although most of the concepts I had learned before in the System Engineering, Project Management, and Knowledge Management modules during my MOT masters course, it was really useful to refresh, dive deeper, practice and share with coursemates. That will be all for my sharing as the course will switch to domain specific topics tomorrow.
Comments