For our third practicum held in Beijing, China, we were tasked with designing and implementing a 2.5 day intervention for a trans-organizational system [TS]. Overtly, our primary client system was the Chinese Association of NGOs (CANGO), a network of approximately 100 non- government organizations operating across China. For our specic 2.5-day workshop, we worked with eight organizations. Other systems involved in the experience included the Blue Team of fellow cohort students collaborating together as well as the faculty and steering committee of the MSOD program itself.
Data was collected from several sources, including a case study on former CANGO leadership development initiatives as well as discussions with the client system. Our understanding of client needs was claried by input from MSOD alumni (Paul Wang, Ashley Carson, and Patrice Pederson) and from Dr. Chris Worley.
Based on client needs, the objectives of the intervention were three-fold: 1) leadership development, 2) network development, and 3) capacity building around strategic planning as it relates to collaboration at a network level. To meet these objectives, our Blue Team choose a hybrid approach incorporating the following blended criteria:
The creation of engaging, interactive exercise/intervention The introduction of new framework/concepts that could be used in participants workplaces as well as during the intervention itself An understanding of how to better leverage their network for resources and new possibilities, as well as what contributes to network sustainability A sense of the potential of and for collaboration in their network A visual depiction of the complexity of co-existing network perspectives A shared, possible vision of the future of the network A map of potential interdependent solutions showing them how to get there
Key learning: In transorganization development, one of the most important outcomes is to shift perspective up to the level of the TS. One of the most common pitfalls, therefore, is allowing diagnostic conversations to get stuck at the unit of analysis where they are most comfortableat the level of the team, department, or organization. A blind spot to acknowledge is the temptation for OD practitioners to want to address presenting problems at the organizational level.
For the most part, CANGO participants had little experience with leadership roles, and their collective perspective did not see, value, or access the potential of their network. Furthermore, issues participants faced did not reach far beyond the level of individual or work team concerns.
All things considered, our overarching goal was a single leadership development workshop that built individual capacity in strategic planning while growing the collective perspective enough to explore potential at the network level.
To accomplish this, we combined didactic and experiential learning approaches. In addition to a case study prepared by Antonia Nicols, our team presented two culturally-appropriate formal lectures: Egan and Lahls four vertical leadership capabilities, lead on Day 1 by Emily Spivey, and an overview of networks and collaboration that I presented on Day 2.
The body of information shared in these lectures became the foundation upon which experiential learning could take place. A World Caf intervention was lead by Helen Scalise on Day 1 to facilitate discussion and create themes around challenges. A quadrant prototyping and role-playing exercise was lead by Antonia Nicols on Day 2 to expand available solutions and improve strategic planning and implementation skills. And on Day 3, I lead participants in drawing the potential of their guanxi (as in, relationship) network map, followed by a fun and highly-interactive collaboration exercise lead by Dawnet Beverley called, Beeping Squares.
Results were excellent. The team incorporated real time evaluations, including non-verbal participant body language and client system feedback about our process. As we debriefed at the end of each day, we used evaluation data to help adjust the design of the next day. A particularly noteworthy team success was the continual reinforcement of key learning points interwoven with ongoing client discussion. The output became a unique and cohesive, overarching workshop conversation that tied together learning across all exercises, yet was precisely tailored to the level of the client.
One challenge the team faced was that critical information about the client system had been inadvertently withheld from the team during our preparation for China. Our workshop design made the assumption that much-requested leadership development and strategic planning components would be applied to participants in leadership positions within the CANGO network. We did not realize that most of the room had never held a leadership role until halfway through our rst day. While our team client contact had attended (as a steering committee observer) a few intervention design calls in preparation for China, it had not occurred to her in observer mode that this kind of participant information would be crucial in intervention design choices. At the end of Day 1, the team was somewhat crestfallen to realize we had designed for different participants than were in front of us. Ultimately, however, we used this new information not only to pivot, but to tighten and enhance our product for Day 2 and 3. In fact, it was likely the extra care to tie all concepts to the level of the participants present that helped us create such a cohesive workshop narrative.
Regarding my personal experience and contribution to our nal product, I can share the following, which touches on some of my point of view as well. Deadlines, seemingly high-pressure scenarios, and VUCA circumstances will cause human systems to give inappropriate value to extraverts over introverts, to action-oriented or task-driven personalities over conceptual/relational thinkers, and to those who can accomplish tasks quickly over those who may need time or to be allowed to make and learn from mistakes. I am the latter in each of these cases, which resulted in a particularly frustrating experience for me leading up to China. It also meant the majority of our decisions did not benet from a diversity of perspective, and the way we ultimately went about designing our team intervention on network interdependence and collaboration was ironically neither interdependent nor very collaborative.
Collaboration is hard. Where coordination may be more of a science, collaboration is more of an art. Facing volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity of VUCA environments causes people to unknowingly fall back on science and lose touch with the art of collaboration.
What I am still struggling with is where to take responsibility for my personal experience. Early on, I asked diagnostic questions at the network level, which were sidestepped. Later, I raised issues about the need to shift perspective up a level in the system, but this was not valued or understood. Feeling unheard and voiceless going into China put me in a space of extreme self-doubt. There was a period where I questioned whether I should stay in the MSOD program.
On the positive, once I presented my intervention components centered on networks, collaboration, and interdependence, the team got it. All team members and adjunct faculty, Phyllis Saltzman, gave me excellent reviews on my contribution. In particular, I demonstrably embodied leadership authenticity in my interaction with team and clients. I was complemented for the humor I infused in my facilitation and the perceptiveness and care I showed for participants. All in all, I am very proud of the Marco that showed up for this unit of work.