Tired but hopeful after an online Management Team “Away Day”


How can we take time out to reflect, learn and plan together as a team when the COVID19 pandemic prevents us from coming together for an in-person ‘Away Day’, as we once would have done?  What can be achieved by an online ‘Away Day’, and how could that work?

These were among the questions that led the Director of a national public sector educational service to approach me for facilitation of an online Management Team “Away Day” earlier this year.

Context

The Director had written in advance, by way of context:

The service is a business unit of the central government department rather than separate from it. The service is provided by 221 individual providers working across 23 offices nationally.  We are a busy senior management team of 9, always progressing and developing and allowing ourselves little time to think and reflect on the bigger picture. We are hoping to take time together to do that, and to come up with a plan for how to go forward. We started off with the idea that we need an organisational review to look at our function and form and adjust our form to meet our evolving function.

The team had cleared a precious two days in their diaries for their ‘Away Day’ – a Friday and the following Monday, later that month. We quickly agreed to schedule a maximum of two 2-hour online sessions over each of those two days, and turned our attention to how to best spend that time – and any asynchronous time that the team could make available in advance.

Aims

Following further conversation, we agreed that the aims of the ‘Away Days’ were to be broadly as follows:

  • to reflect and learn together on the team’s experience of the unfolding story of development and change of the Service, over time and in context,
  • to develop and agree principles that should be upheld in how the Service is structured to best fulfill its changing functions,
  • to develop and consider models of how those principles might best be applied in a new organizational form,
  • to agree next steps – including perhaps consultation with staff and other stakeholders, and
  • to build shared clarity, confidence, and commitment toward to a new way forward together.

Approach

The approach I proposed drew on the methods of ICA’s Technology of Participation (ToP). Pioneered and refined by ICA in over 50 years of experience worldwide, this is a proven system of methods and tools that can be adapted and applied to help all sorts of groups accomplish a wide variety of tasks together. The core values of the ToP approach, which inform all of my work, are inclusive participation, teamwork and collaboration, individual and group creativity, ownership and action, reflection and learning.

The Focused Conversation method provides a structured, four-level process for effective communication which ensures that everyone in a group has the opportunity to participate.

The Consensus Workshop method is a five-stage process that enables a facilitator to draw out and weave together everybody’s wisdom into a clear and practical consensus.

The Historical Scan method combines elements of these two. It provides a participatory approach for a group to review the past to prepare for the future, to reflect and learn together from their own and each other’s experience of the team and organisation’s change and context.

Tools

We agreed that the sessions would be held in Zoom, for it’s audio, video and chat functions, and use Mural for visual brainstorming and clustering of ideas.

The team used WebEx for their regular online meetings, but they were familiar with Zoom and quick to agree to use that – it was an ‘away’ day they wanted, after all!  They were not familiar with Mural, but the Director was encouraged by a quick demo and quick to agree the advantages of such a visual approach.

Process

The agenda for the two days comprised three 2-hour sessions, two on Friday and one on Monday afternoon, plus asynchronous individual or small group work on Monday morning:

  Friday  Monday 
Morning.

10am–12 noon

Session 1

  • Opening & welcome, introductions & hopes
  • Overview of aims, process & tools
  • Historical Scan – what can we learn from the unfolding story of the Service, over time and in context?
  • Reflection & close
Individual or small group work

Developing models of how those agreed principles might best be applied in a new organizational form for the Service

  • visually in Mural or on paper
  • physically in Lego, playdough or whatever you have to hand!
  • or in a chart, diagram or text.
Afternoon.

2-4pm

Session 2

  • Opening
  • Consensus Workshop – what principles should be upheld in how the Service is structured to best fulfill its changing functions?
  • Your assignment of individual or small group work for Monday afternoon
  • Reflection & close
Session 3

  • Opening
  • Presentation & review of models – reflections & patterns, insights & implications, how can we build on the best of them all?
  • Next steps – commitments & deadlines
  • Reflection & close.

On the Monday before the away days I circulated details of the aims, process and tools to the whole team. I invited them to familiarize themselves with Mural in advance, by watching a short video tutorial and sharing introductions and hopes for the sessions there on digital ‘sticky notes’. I invited them also to bring some brainstorm ideas to our opening session if they could – in answer to the question: “What are some key events and milestones in the unfolding story of the Service and its context, from 2000 to the present (and, as you might anticipate, ahead to 2030)?”

I was joined for the sessions by fellow ICA:UK Associates Orla Cronin (session 1) and Megan Evans (2 & 3). Neither of them was available at short notice for all three sessions, but the three of us were well enough acquainted with each other and the ToP approach that that barely mattered.

How it unfolded

Even for such a relatively small group and simple process as this, it did prove invaluable to have Orla and Megan with me in the sessions to play the role of producer. We certainly could have managed without, but only at the cost of time and attention – both especially precious commodities online. They were both able to alert me to things I hadn’t noticed in the group and its process, even while taking care of the tech so that I and the group could pay attention to the group and its process.

The group took very quickly to both the process and the tools. Giving the group a chance to use the practice Mural in advance was a good idea, as was a second email to encourage them to try it. While one or two found Mural to be something of a distraction to them on occasions, all three small groups chose to present their models on the Mural board in session 3. One group added not just photographs of their models, but lots of additional material as well.

Our impression was that their time for asynchronous working on Monday morning had been very valuable in thinking about the future format of the service. All participants appeared very engaged in the discussions, although perhaps also concerned about the reality of developing new ways of working in a post COVID19 world.

Giving participants enough time in the Consensus Workshop in session 2 to discuss their ideas in groups certainly paid off. Little clarification was needed and discussions were constructive. As they were a small group who knew each other and the organisation very well, the naming stage proceeded remarkably quickly. The participants inputted their ideas directly onto cards pre-loaded onto the Mural with no problems and in the next stages the fact that as facilitators we could see which cards they were moving despite them being in breakout rooms helped us to manage the time well.

All of the sessions could have benefited from more time, and we did extend a couple of them a little in order to end them well. However, we were glad not to have packed more screen time into the two days than we did, and to have allowed for 10 minute breaks with each session.

I learned that sharing shortened bit.ly links to the Mural boards, as a more user-friendly alternative to the very long and cumbersome original Mural links, in fact excluded some whose security settings prevented them from following the links!

What the participants had to say

 


See also about mehow I work and who I work with, and please contact me about how we might work together. Please do not delay before contacting me – the earlier I hear from you, the more chance that I will be able to help and the more helpful I may be able to be.

Register now on Eventbrite for my free facilitation webinars, and for my regularly scheduled ToP facilitation training courses in London and Brussels and now online too.

Facilitation case study: Clinical Leadership Evaluation and Development with Manchester Primary Care Trust

This ToP facilitation case study from the archive was first written for and published in 2008 by ICA:UK.

The ToP Focused Conversation and Consensus Workshop methods are the focus of my upcoming Group Facilitation Methods course in Brussels, May 20-21. The ToP Historical Scan (Wall of Wonder) method features in two of my current projects, Celebrating the development of facilitation – world-wide and history long and Our ETF, a Journey Together. The process design and questions used were structured on the basis of the ORID model of the ToP Focused Conversation method (my ‘universal principle of facilitation‘).


Context

nhs-manchesterEffective clinical leadership is seen as central to the cultural and organisational changes expected of organisations across the health service, in the context of national reforms aimed at creating a patient-led NHS.

When ICA:UK was approached in early 2006, investments had been made in recent years in strengthening clinical leadership within the then South Manchester Primary care Trust (PCT).  These included the introduction of cluster working, and three Cluster Directors, to support extended primary care teams in multi-disciplinary and multi-agency working; and the creation of an in-house Education, Learning and Workforce Development Team, with a Practice Nurse serving as Clinical Lead.  Considerable further change was required and underway, including Agenda for Change and the merger of the three Manchester PCTs (South, North & Central).

Aims

In this context, it was felt timely to involve key stakeholders in evaluating clinical leadership within the PCT, and identifying opportunities and making plans for its further development.  ICA:UK was therefore contracted to design and facilitate a process to meet the following aims:

  1. to begin to evaluate clinical leadership across the PCT in relation to its impact on the organisation and organisational change, including the effectiveness of recent investments in clinical leadership;
  2. to identify opportunities for further development of clinical leadership, and empowering of clinical leaders, toward a culture of leadership within the PCT;
  3. to engage with and involve people in an inclusive and transparent way, that fosters a sense of ownership over the process and its outcomes.

Process

A series of tailored workshops was designed and delivered to meet these aims.  The process drew heavily on ICA’s ToP (Technology of Participation) methodology, notably the ToP Focused Conversation, Consensus Workshop, Action Planning and Historical Scan (or Wall of Wonder) methods.

A series of consecutive half-day Consultation workshops each followed a broadly similar process, but were tailored to engage with and involve three distinct stakeholder groups separately.  This approach was used in order that each group felt able to contribute frankly and without affecting each others’ contributions, and to enable triangulation of the results.  The three stakeholder groups were:

  • the clinical leaders themselves – one workshop for all 15-20 from across the PCT
  • front line clinicians without leadership roles – two workshops for approximately 30, identified by the Education, Learning and Workforce Development Team to be broadly representative of the total of 200 or so within the PCT
  • other key stakeholders with organisational responsibility for leadership – approximately 10-12 including the Education, Learning and Workforce Development Team, the three Cluster Directors and the Executive Director

Consultation workshops outline:

Arrivals & coffee/lunch
Opening & introductions, overview, ‘prouds & sorries’ & expectations
“Wall of Wonder” to map together the development of clinical leadership in SMPCT visually; to share stories & begin to discern chapters, trends, impacts, learnings, implications
Tea/Coffee break
Analysis of factors affecting clinical leadership development – what’s worked and what’s not worked, what supports & what blocks; in small groups followed brief plenary reports
Brainstorming of actions for clinical leadership development – in small groups followed brief plenary reports and prioritising by “sticky dot voting”
Reflection & close

In the event it proved impossible to bring the senior stakeholders together in person for a workshop, and so they were consulted instead by means of an email questionnaire.  The questions were tailored to generate responses compatible with those of workshop participants:

  1. In your experience, what have been 4 or 5 key events or milestones in the development of clinical leadership in SMPCT in the last 3 years? Please include dates (as best as you can).
  2. What are you particularly proud of, and sorry about, in relation to the development of clinical leadership in SMPCT?  Please list a few positives and a few negatives.  Please use examples or anecdotes to illustrate your points if you wish.
  3. In your experience and understanding, what are 4 or 5 key factors affecting clinical leadership development in the PCT?  For example – what do you think supports, and what blocks, the development of clinical leadership? 
  4. What 4 or 5 actions or changes would you recommend to support the development of clinical leadership in the PCT in the future, and address any blocks?  Feel free to suggest simple, one-off tasks or more complex, long-term projects – but please be as specific as you can.

A final half-day Review & Planning workshop was held the following week, for a representative sample of the three groups (approximately 20-30).  This workshop was designed to enable the group to reflect together on the output of the first three workshops, and agree an outline action plan for clinical leadership development within the PCT.

Review & planning workshop outline:

Arrivals & coffee
Opening & introductions, overview & expectations
Review of workshops documentation, questions of clarity; reflection & interpretation in small groups followed by brief plenary reports; writing up key actions on half-sheets, drawing on those brainstormed by means of the three Consultation workshops and email questionnaire
Tea/Coffee break
Action planning – cluster key actions by task forces, self-select into task forces to clarify & schedule actions by quarter, brief plenary reports, leadership & co-ordination
Reflection & close

Outputs & outcomes

The process used was documented in a Process Outline (June 16th 2006), and its outputs were documented in two reports, of the Consultation process (July 6th 2006) and of the Review & Planning (July 26th 2006).

A key outcome of the process was the establishment of four task forces, each comprised of 3-4 members from across the three groups, and each with its remit defined and with a first-draft work plan including quarterly milestones for the coming year and beyond. The remit of the four task-forces were:

  • Growth, Development, Training Opportunities
  • Redefinition & Clarity of Role & Responsibility & Expectations
  • Supporting Systems and Processes
  • Transparency, Communication & Access to Support

According to participants’ end-of-workshop feedback, highlights of the process included:

  • “Liked interactive style – getting up & moving around”
  • “Group interaction helped people to understand other point of view”
  • “An opportunity to speak and hopefully implement change”
  • “Feel process was moved on to something constructive”
  • “Positive actions proposed at end of session to take proposals forwards”

Follow-up process

Seven months on from the workshops, in early 2007, it was clear that the four groups had all met at least once, that their plans had progressed at least to some extent, and that at least some others had become involved.

The context of the work had changed significantly, however, with the merger of the three Manchester PCTs into one from October 2006, and with expectations of increased multi-agency working with for example Childrens’ Services & Adults’ Services, and also privatised services.  A new Associate Director of Services & Development had been appointed, whose remit was to  include clinical leadership development across the new PCT.

ICA:UK was contracted again, in early 2007, to design and facilitate a follow-up process to meet the following key aims:

  1. to engage the four task forces in reporting, and learning from, their progress together;
  2. to document their learnings in a report, including quotes, by which they may be disseminated within the new Manchester PCT
  3. to celebrate the accomplishments of the task forces and bring closure to the project, while sustaining a sense of achievement and potential for applying their learnings – at least as individuals, if not also as Manchester PCT

These aims were met by way of two related pieces of work.  An initial email questionnaire was circulated in February, to all participants and invitees of the process to date, to discern their experiences of the process and their perspectives on progress made, barriers experienced, and learnings.  A follow-up workshop was then held in March, to bring together the four task-forces and any email contributions received with the new Associate Director – to report on and celebrate progress made, to learn from experience, and to consider implications for themselves as individuals & leaders, and for the new Manchester PCT.

The email questionnaire in February comprised the following questions:

  1. As far as you know, what have been 2 or 3 key events or accomplishments that have occurred as a result of last July’s consultation and planning process?
  2. As far as you know, what have been 2 or 3 barriers or blocks that have hindered implementation of the plans made last July?
  3. What have you as an individual learned as a result of your involvement in this clinical leadership development work since last July?  How has that affected you personally, or your work?
  4. What would you identify as the one or two key lessons for the new Manchester-wide PCT to learn from this experience, relative to clinical leadership and its development?

Follow-up workshop outline:

Arrivals & coffee
Opening & introductions, overview & expectations
Evaluating progress – events & accomplishments, barriers & blocks, lessons learned; drawing both on email responses and on insight of those present
Lunch
Key learning messages for the new Manchester PCT – Consensus Workshop to weave together everyone’s insights into a single clear and concise statement
Reflection & Close

The process used was documented in a Process Outline (February 22nd 2007), and its outputs were documented in a report (April 2nd 2007).

The key output of this follow-up workshop was the output of the Consensus Workshop, a clear statement from participants of the 7-month process articulating their “key learning messages” for the new, merged Manchester PCT, from their experience of clinical leadership development:

We recommend that Manchester PCT should…

  • engage at all levels to ensure that structures, systems and behaviours are conducive to demonstrating effective leadership;
  • engage everyone in developing and communicating a shared model of effective leadership;
  • invest in the development of leadership at all levels;
  • support people in taking calculated risks within an accountability framework;
  • support clinicians to identify client needs when developing services;
  • analyse what we have, clarify what we want … and get on with it.

Impact & feedback

Gabrielle Wilson, Public Health Consultant Nurse and the client for the process, wrote:

“The participative methods adopted throughout this work encouraged clinicians, managers and senior stakeholders to engage with the process. Evaluation and feedback indicated that this inclusive and transparent approach was valued by participants, and that clinicians welcomed the opportunity to systematically identify learning messages for the new organisation.”

Christine Pearson, new Associate Director of Services & Development, wrote:

“Although not in post to be part of the initial work, I attended the follow up workshop in March. The style of engagement adopted ensured a participative approach and effective, valuable feedback that will inform future leadership development within the organisation.”

A further indication of the impact of the process may be an increased appetite within the PCT for applying the ToP approach to participation and partnership working.

A further series of Consultation workshops and a Review & Planning workshop were delivered later in 2007, on Management and Leadership Development.  This adapted the format and process developed for Clinical Leadership Evaluation and Development in South Manchester to engage with a cross-section of staff of the new Manchester PCT – to begin to develop a consensus on “a Manchester way of managing”, a core set of leadership and management competencies to deliver this style, and a few priority actions for “quick wins” over the following months.

Since then the approach has also been applied to review and planning “away days” with individual staff teams including the Joint Occupational Therapist Unit of Manchester Equipment and Adaptations Partnership (a joint service of Manchester PCT and Manchester City Council) and the Manchester PCT Interpretation Service.

Facilitation case study: Staff Away Day with George House Trust

This ToP facilitation case study from the archive was first written for and published in 2009 by ICA:UK.

GHT Away day

.

Context

George House Trust (GHT) is the HIV voluntary organisation for the North West of England.  It supports people living with and affected by HIV, and campaigns for the best quality of life for all people with HIV. ICA:UK was approached in July 2007 to design and facilitate a staff Away Day later that month.

GHT had undergone substantial change in the last couple of years – including significant expansion of the staff team and it’s service delivery, turnover of some senior staff, and subsequent restructuring of management posts.  A need had been felt for an externally facilitated process to allow staff to unpack and reflect together on this recent past, at what was felt to be a turning point before looking ahead by means of a fresh strategic planning process later in the year.

Around a dozen of the full staff team of 14 were to attend – including one very new, a few new within the past few years, and others with a long history of service.  As an organisation involved in hard campaigning on controversial issues in a sometimes highly politicised environment, the staff team comprised strong advocates and activists.

Aims

The day was designed and facilitated to provide a safe and supportive space to reflect together on the staff team’s shared recent past, and how it had affected them as individuals and the organisation as a whole. The aims of the day were articulated as follows:

  • to allow stresses, frustrations and challenges to be aired, balanced by successes and achievements as well;
  • to ‘draw a line’ under the past, and lay a firm foundation for forward strategic planning later in the year;
  • to have some fun, and rebuild stronger bonds and a sense of team spirit.

Process

The two key elements of the process design were the ToP (Technology of Participation) ‘Wall of Wonder’ (or ‘Historical Scan’) method, used in the morning to enable the group to reflect together on its recent past, and the World Café method, used in the afternoon to enable the group to articulate creatively “how it would like to be able to describe the culture of GHT”.

These were complemented by a number of shorter exercises and sessions to frame the day, set the tone and build the team.  These included sharing hopes and fears, expectations and ground rules; People Bingo, Two Truths and a Lie, and a balloon race; and a reflective self-assessment and sharing of strengths and weaknesses, and offers and wants of support. The timetable of the day was as follows:

9.30 Arrivals & coffee
10.00 Opening, housekeeping, aims & process
Expectations & ground rules
Energizer & introductions
‘Wall of Wonder’ small group work
Tea/coffee break
‘Wall of Wonder’ plenary
12.30 Lunch
1.15 ‘World Café’ conversation
Tea/coffee break
Team-building exercise
-4.00 Evaluation, next steps & close

Outputs & feedback

The documentation of the day included the aims and outline of the process, participants’ hopes & fears and ground rules, a full verbatim record of the Wall of Wonder and World Café sessions with photos of the sticky wall and decorated table cloths, and detailed feedback from participants’ evaluation forms.

Participants’ feedback included:

  • the timeline really enabled us to address many key issues for ourselves
  • lots of issues bubbling beneath the surface got a good airing
  • I feel a line has very, very clearly been drawn under some past events – I feel there will be more team cohesiveness and we will move on in strength
  • I feel we have a better understanding of each other & better ways of working

Michelle Reid, GHT Chief Executive, wrote in November 2008 of the impact of the day:

An effective team will always need to invest in “time out” in order to continue functioning well. The organisation had gone through significant change, and inevitably we needed to re-group and re-establish the frameworks that make the organisation such a formidable force to be reckoned with. ICA facilitated an excellent day which helped to enable us to go from strength to strength.