Any Questions about Action Learning, the Process or support documentation circulated
Agree Ground Rules
Bids to be Problem Holder / Decide what bids to go with and in what order
Work through one or more bids
Process review
This report was published in Action Learning News, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp 2-7, May 2001. It appears that the Set was the first to be run via audio-conferencing.
This paper reports on what may have been the first Action
Learning Set to use audio-conferencing rather than face-to-face meetings. The
approach used and lessons learned are described. Comments by Set Members are
included. Notes on audio-conferencing appear in Appendix 2.
This paper is written mainly for people with some prior experience of
Action Learning Sets.
1.
Action Learning Sets can be run by audio-conferencing. They probably will
work better with people already comfortable with audio-conferencing and with
more rather than less inter-personal skill.
2.
There are still advantages in face-to-face Sets. There are advantages in
virtual Set Members either knowing each other in advance or having at least the
first meeting face-to-face.
3.
Meetings of up to two and half-hours are feasible provided that people
have hands-free phones or headsets and a break is taken.
Until September 2000 I was an Organisational Development
Manager in BT. Around the time that I decided to leave BT there was
exceptionally positive feedback from an Action Learning Set that I had supported
at BT’s research establishment.
Action Learning had not been widely used in BT and I was
asked to prepare others to run Sets before I left. I suggested the quickest
way to do this was to run a set for people who already facilitated in
other situations. There were two people in the same team who wanted to be part
of a Set. This, and the way that audio-conferencing had become an accepted way
of conducting meetings in BT, led to my supporting two Sets. One was a
“standard”, face-to-face group and the other became know as the Virtual
Action Learning (VAL) Set. My
research to date has not come up with any evidence of other virtual sets.
Invitations to join the VAL Set were emailed to members of
the Organisational Excellence group of BT UK. Most these people are consultants
and have group facilitation skills. Along with the invitations went attachments
outlining the nature of traditional Action Learning and making clear that VAL
was an experiment and the need for facilitation skills to join this particular
group. One objective of the Set was “to create mutual support” (for
internal consultants) while BT was making major changes to the nature of its
business and services.
An audio-conference was held for people who were interested
in joining the Set. A list of six meetings over three months was drawn up and
people were told that they must be able to attend the first meeting and, at that
point, be free to attend at least five meetings in all.
There was wide interest but only six people could make the commitments needed. All of these people had significant experience of change management and had facilitated groups. There was a real advantage in having virtual meetings as the VAL Set Members were widely spread (Northwest, the Midlands, East Anglia, London and the Home Counties).
It was an advantage to the Set that all of the Set Members
knew each other already. Some members knew each other quite well and in other
cases they had at least spoken together a few times.
My approach to Action Learning comes largely from what I experienced at Sets organised by the Greater London Employers’ Secretariat in the 80’s. In this approach one person, the Problem Holder, is helped by the other Set Members to achieve a greater understanding of the issue through questioning. As well as working with the “technical” problem there is encouragement to reflect on what feelings the issue raises and what can be learnt from the emotional dimensions. Advice giving is discouraged. Process reviews are held at the end of each meeting.
This approach needs a high level of trust and the challenge for me was to encourage in the virtual environment the openness that is characteristic of a successful face-to-face Set .
I considered other media for VAL Set. NetMeeting (software
to allow phone link and sharing of what one person puts on screen) is well
established in BT. To use it for Action Learning, though, people would need not
just a private space but one where they could link up by computer.
NetMeeting might have done what flipcharts do for traditional meetings
but, it seemed to me that NetMeeting did not offer the same immediacy or
flexibility. For example, one can
readily use a flipchart in real time to mind-map a problem, sketch relationships
between team members or explain how a group fits into an organisation. One can
do all of these things with software but they may take considerably longer.
For over two years I had chaired a bi-monthly meeting of up to 14 people using four to six video-conferencing studios in UK cities. There are great advantages in video-conferencing for people who have not met each other. BT video-conferencing studios include a camera that captures what is written on a whiteboard or flipchart. However, one limitation when using more than two studios is that only one studio can be received at a time. Audio-conferencing allows anyone to speak at any time and therefore makes for more fluid exchanges. This, and the fact that audio is cheaper than video and does not require people to go to studios, helped me to decide on audio-conferencing for VAL.
Documents were emailed to the Set Members with an agenda of the first meeting. Set Members received both a detailed explanation of the process for working through an issue and an outline of that process designed for ready-reference during the meeting.
In previous sets I had always asked the members to come up
with their own ground rules. I
think this encourages more ownership of the Set and allows the members to begin
working with each other before anyone becomes the Problem Holder.
I was not sure how drawing up of rules would work without a flipchart and
I also felt that a Virtual Set required additional rules for trust. I therefore
sent out as a draft a set of rules (see Appendix 1) derived from some earlier
work by one of the Set Members with a particular interest in virtual working. My
draft covered both rules for audio-conferencing and rules agreed by a
face-to-face Set.
The pre-meeting audio-conference agreed that the Set meetings would last two and half-hours and that we would take a break of at least ten minutes about halfway through.
The agenda for the first meetings was:
|
Any Questions about Action Learning, the Process or support documentation circulated |
|
Agree Ground Rules |
|
Bids to be Problem Holder / Decide what bids to go with and in what order |
|
Work through one or more bids |
|
Process review |
Apart from the first two items and the addition of two features described below, this was more or less the agenda used for other meetings.
Meetings began with “personal updates”, a chance for people to share anything they wanted to. People were encouraged to update on issues they had worked through with the group.
At the start of meetings, perhaps while waiting for others to join the call, I would ask people to say something about from where they were phoning. My sense is that knowing the context of the individual helps others to form a picture that helps the communication.
None of the meetings dealt with more than one issue. In my experience, this is not unusual for recently formed Sets using a process that encourages reflection. It seemed to me that the pace of VAL was only marginally slower than face-to-face Sets when they first meet.
|
Any Questions about Action Learning, the Process or support documentation circulated |
|
Agree Ground Rules |
|
Bids to be Problem Holder / Decide what bids to go with and in what order |
|
Work through one or more bids |
|
Process review |
Apart from the first two items and the addition of two features described below, this was more or less the agenda used for other meetings.
Meetings began with “personal updates”, a chance for people to share anything they wanted to. People were encouraged to update on issues they had worked through with the group.
At the start of
meetings, perhaps while waiting for others to join the call, I would ask people
to say something about from where they were phoning. My sense is that knowing
the context of the individual helps others to form a picture that helps the
communication. None
of the meetings dealt with more than one issue. In my experience, this is not
unusual for recently formed Sets using a process that encourages reflection. It
seemed to me that the pace of VAL was only marginally slower than face-to-face
Sets when they first meet. The Set met at a time when BT in the UK was undergoing
a major reorganisation. Set members picked up extra work supporting the changes
and Organisational Excellence itself was radically restructured. One member was
only able to attend one meeting and then dropped out of the group. Not counting
the person who dropped out, attendance was complete at three of the six meetings
and the average attendance, not counting the facilitator, was four people. The first meeting accepted the rules as drafted by me
very readily; too quickly for my liking. For any future VAL Set, in order to
promote more debate and ownership, I would provide the rules for meeting
virtually but not provide material for ground rules (see Appendix
1). The first meeting got off to a good start in that the
problem addressed was one with a personal dimension. Some Sets may meet several
times before people begin to share their feelings about issues to any extent. In
many Sets, it is noticeable that the quality of the work takes off after one
person has shared the emotions raised by an issue. In the review there was agreement that having some
prior experience of each other was a significant advantage. The Problem Holder
acknowledged that, “It feels difficult to do this when I am not in a
circle…. I hope you all feel some sense of encouragement when it is your
turn.” Two people saw some
advantages in being remote:Progress of the
Set
|
“Some things work better on the phone if the discipline is there.” |
|
“Not having eye contact can help with clarification.” |
Overall, we had got off to a very good start. In meeting two, with encouragement, a new Problem Holder dealt with both the technical and personal feelings of an issue. He reported finding this “very useful”. In this meeting I began to encourage Set Members to begin to make process interventions and take over parts of the facilitator role. I thought this was reasonable given the level of facilitation skill in the group but the feedback was that they wanted more time getting used to the Action Learning conventions and process.
Before the sixth meeting I told the Set that I would be
asking what they wanted to do after the last scheduled meeting. The remaining
Set Members agreed to keep meeting virtually as a self-facilitating set and are
considering taking one or two new members. To help them (and others from
face-to-face Sets interested in promoting Action Learning in BT) I ran a
three-hour seminar on starting and supporting Sets.
As of January 2001, the set is still meeting had has taken on one new member.
The five remaining Set Members completed a questionnaire on their experience and the answers were collated by one of the members. The replies are summarised below.
Four out of five found the set was either beneficial or very beneficial to their interpersonal skills. Then one person who had “little benefit” added that, “I did not feel that I had learned any new skills, but perhaps a different approach to problem solving.” Another comment was, “I found the set an excellent safe environment to practise these skills and learn from the experience of others”.
The majority of Set Members found that there were other benefits for the company. E.g.
|
It has provided me with a good tool that I am sure I can utilise in other work areas. |
|
I feel part of network of people who I can call on when tackling new issues in a new work area. |
Answers to “What was useful for you about how the Set was organised and run?” included:
|
The free choice I felt I had about joining |
|
The team was excellently facilitated; there was a clear process which people followed |
|
The clarity of the ground rules ~ and the fact that we observed them |
|
The suitable length of time we met ~ including a sensitively-timed break each time |
|
The support documents, especially the one-page reminder sheet (of the process), which I found very useful during the meetings |
|
The friendly approach quickly built rapport and an environment of trust was quickly created |
|
The mix of members, a blend of people who knew each other a bit and who could deepen the relationships. |
There was also one person who wrote “The set came at the wrong time for me because of the reorganisation.”
Answers to “What was less useful for you about how the Set was organised and run?” included:
|
Listening was really key to
supporting each other but difficult at times |
|
People dropping out at short notice, including myself, causes difficulty with the small numbers that are critical to this type of set |
There were also suggestions for more definition of the nature of the Set and its aims before joining and that there could be less emphasis on safeguards for confidentiality of calls.
Four people felt that the time invested in the Set was a “good use” of resources and one person rated this as “break even”. Comments included:
|
I'd like to continue and I am sure I would get more value out of the process if either I have a problem to discuss or facilitate a session. (The group has agreed to continue and has already met again, with one of the members facilitating). |
|
…. we should continue and think about encouraging use of the tool by others in the business. |
There were several suggestions as to groups in BT that could benefit from Action Learning and VAL.
|
The tool is most useful for people involved in business improvement / transformation activity |
|
Strategy teams where “taking time out” and “out of the box” thinking are key to success. |
|
The virtual approach would work very effectively with geographically disparate groups of people in high-pressure areas, giving them the space to explore problems without the downtime of attending meetings. |
|
People with a strong delivery responsibility ~ e.g. project managers, product managers |
|
Leaders of smallish teams |
Compared to the Facilitator, the Set members feel that VAL has the potential to meet a wider range of development needs.
In terms of what was learned or re-learned, each person was asked to give up to three answers. There was a range of responses including (in abbreviated form):
|
Listening / Listening
non-judgementally and open questions |
|
Teamwork and our use of networks |
|
Respect for each other |
|
Empathy with clients while remembering problem ownership rests with them |
|
The need to define and scope problems before rushing in |
|
The need to have clear and agreed ground rules in the virtual environment |
|
That it may look obvious to you what the person could do but it’s very different being the person with the issue |
|
Widening perspective improves solutions to problems |
|
People will give good will when asked |
|
Widening perspective improves solutions to problems |
|
Clear process aids task performance |
|
People need to know each other/have built some rapport |
|
Use of hands free equipment with good sound quality |
|
Undisturbed environment for the call |
|
Absolute clarity on times, dates and calling arrangements and commitment to these |
|
People need a strong ‘be here now’ thinking ability to switch off the day job |
|
A desire to practise new skill in a safe environment. |
|
A headset makes the experience much easier. There were times when others made comments about holding the handset or difficulty of trying to make notes with one hand |
|
Having the process in front of you helps. |
|
Facilitation has been key to building the rapport, trust and expertise of the group. Virtual sets need a strong experienced facilitator during their early days. |
|
It was very enjoyable spending time with colleagues on real issues |
Some other points were fed back on VAL at a seminar I ran for people interested in learning about setting up and running Action Learning groups.
|
Sometimes people may not realise fully the benefits of the process until they become the Problem Holder. |
|
There was a need to reassure people that most Sets at first struggle with the process and feelings that the proceedings should go faster. |
|
Action Learning has something to offer for the loss of social contact that comes with continued working to tight deadlines and dispersed teams. |
|
Build into the expectations and contract for the Set that they will be encouraged to take over part of the facilitator role. |
Being asked to develop others
to facilitate Action Learning within a three-month period made me realise how
fortunate I had been in my induction. I belonged to a set with an excellent
facilitator that met monthly for almost two years and then I joined a
long-established, self-facilitating set for another eighteen months. Without any great effort on my part, I absorbed enough
understanding and skill to feel OK about facilitating a set
in a new environment.
I now think that I did push the VAL
people too hard to take on learning related to facilitating the set. I assumed
that because they had good facilitation skills in other situations this pushing
was reasonable. I have been reminded how the transfer of skills needs time for
people to understand what is different about the new situation and to begin to
feel at home in it.
My conclusion is that it is better to develop Action Learning facilitators through face-to-face groups. If the development can only be done virtually, more than six meetings are probably advisable, even for people with significant relevant background. I suggest a minimum of nine with the proviso that the group can become self-facilitating at an earlier stage if people demonstrate the skills required and feel ready for this step.
What about other virtual sets
where producing new facilitators is not the aim? I am strongly of the opinion
that, all other things being equal, a VAL is not as good as a face-to-face set.
Putting aside the possibility that set members may find it easier to attend
virtual meetings, a group of people would probably develop more through
face-to-face than through a virtual set.
To get the same results the VAL people need more skills and qualities. My belief is they need higher level of listening skills and the ability to sense what the other person is feeling without visual clues. The work of the facilitator is also easier in a face-to-face set. Here the facilitator can use a look or gesture to deter an individual from pursuing a particular line of questioning or to encourage an individual to take their turn at being the Problem Holder or questioner. The VAL facilitator also needs the ability to get a sense of the group and how individuals are progressing without the benefit of visual cues.
In a face-to-face set the members can use visual clues to help work out who gets to be problem holder. If someone stays very quiet at the start of a VAL meeting, without greater sensitivity how would one know this person is sitting on a very pressing problem?.
Until there is considerably more reporting on VAL I think it would be better for organisations to pilot VAL with care. It could well be that for some groups or individuals VAL would not be welcomed and produce insufficient benefits when face-to-face sets would work. Until there is more understanding of what works and for whom I recommend the following when considering VAL:
|
If possible, begin by running face-to-face Sets for the people who will become facilitators of future VAL sets. Make the transition for this group to VAL after six face-to-face meetings. If all of such a group already have experience of Action Learning, an earlier move to VAL can be made. |
|
When recruiting people for other VAL sets look for people with experience of audio-conferencing, remote working where telephone contact is a major part of the job, better than average interpersonal skills and personal resilience. |
|
Provide very clear briefings about what to expect and the qualities required of Set members |
|
Make a careful selection, possibly by interview, of Set members |
Having said that, the skills that VAL will develop are highly relevant to dispersed and virtual team members. In theory, apart from time zones, there is nothing to stop VAL Sets linking up people in different parts of the world. In this way VAL might make a major contribution to the needs of multi-national organisations to promote wider understanding of different cultures.
It may be possible to run VAL Sets for longer than two and a half hours but my sense is that this is the outer limit. I feel something would be lost if initial meetings were shorter than two hours. I would feel comfortable with a mature Set aiming to complete a meeting in two hours as more experienced people and well-knit Sets usually make better use of the time available.
1. Naoto Sasaki, Management and Industrial Structure in Japan, Pergamon Press, Oxford 1981
Acknowledgements
My thanks to all the VAL Set Members for their participation and feedback. Special thanks to Chris Webbley for his help with this report and serving as a link with the VAL members after I left BT.
Paul Burns
|
© Wendwell 2001. This document may be copied free of charge provided that this box is reproduced with each copy or part copy and copies are not sold or used as part of a service for which a charge is made. Wendwell provide OD and HR consulting, including support of Action Learning, Virtual Action Learning and training for Action Learning Facilitators. Tel. 020 8385 2900 wendwell@btinternet.com www.wendwell.co.uk |
This is the information sent out
to the VAL members before the first Set meeting.
1.
People taking part need to commit to the session as if they were present
physically. The Action Learning Set requires your full attention.
2.
Likely distractions should be minimised for the duration of the session
or explained in advance.
3.
To promote the growth of confidence and respect confidentiality.
4.
Connections via landline only.
5.
People taking part should be in a private area were others cannot hear
what is said. Hands-free phones must not be audible outside the private area.
6.
Where needed, doors will be marked to advise people not to interrupt.
7. Details of conference calling arrangements to be treat as Confidential.
For information, this is an example of a set of rules agreed by one face-to-face Set.
1. Start and finish on time.
2. Open and honest
3. Share responsibility for meeting objectives
4. Strive for consensus decisions
5. Make discussion additive
6. One person speaks at a time; no side conversations
7. Review achievement of objectives and adherence to rules.
8. Anything said within the Group is confidential to the Group. In particular, nothing may be repeated or used outside of the group that could be attributed to, or disadvantage, an individual.
9. Notes may be taken during the group provided that these are for personal use only and due care is taken to keep them private.
10. It is acceptable for a member of the group to ask a Problem Holder if s/he is willing to discuss matters relating to the problem outside the group.
Appendix 2
Audio-conferencing can mean different things. One distinction is between non-mediated and mediated calls.
Non-Mediated
Non-mediated means that the people involved in the call do not need the services of anyone else. The people who take part make the call as and when they want.
This could involve three-way calling, which is now widely available. And it can also mean that for at least one end of a call, people are gathered around a hands-free phone. There are specially designed audio-conference phones that enable up to a dozen people around a table to all hear and take part in a conversation with one or more people at another location.
The non-mediated approach was not used in the VAL pilot as more than three people were always expected and none of the members found it easy to meet together to share a phone.
Mediated
This means that the call is booked via an Audio Conference provider. In the VAL, calls were booked with BT Audio-conferencing and the number to dial to join the conference and a pin number were sent by email to the Set members.
One option for conference calls is for callers to be personally greeted by an individual employed by the conference facility provider. This was not used for VAL. It is also possible to use 0800 numbers for mediated calls.
Equipment for Conference Calls
Use of mobiles was discouraged in VAL because the sound quality may be less satisfactory than a landline.
For many people it is not comfortable to use a handset over a long period. Hands-free phones are one solution but the quality of these varies and any persistent background noise can be tiring for other set members.
The preferred solution is a headset. Not all phones, even modern ones, have a socket for a headset. If interested in audio-conferencing, check that any new phones you buy have headset sockets. The BT Converse range will take a headset. These are readily a