Had one of those
nuanced conversations with a co-facilitator once
that left me with more to ponder about my deepest understanding and
attitudes about what I do. I love those types of talks!
People gather into a small group—we might call it a team, a board, a
task force, a commission. With great attention and sometimes with the
aid of a facilitator they compile
Noble Norms. These have other
names such as Group Rules, Team Rules, etc. but all of them seek to
establish the basic behavioral understanding of the group. This becomes
some type of Group Law.
And then the group goes about conducting its business. As groups seldom designate a
Group Cop or
Group Judge,
how will this collection of peers raise concerns should one or several
members believe a Group Rule has been violated by another member? If
adjustments cannot or will not be raised, the Group Rules become
meaningless and people act willy-nilly. This might be fine, or might
begin a vicious cycle of destructive behaviors.
There's a
Group Learning answer and a
Personal Comfort
answer. At the Personal Comfort level, the suggestion is that the
disturbed member draw the violating member aside after the meeting and
address the norms violation. This doesn't distract any of the other
members from the ongoing business at hand, the two can handle it, and
life goes on.
The drawback to this approach is that the other members may not be privy
to any resolution, what was resolved, and any remediation of the
relationship. Let's say our team has eight members. One person jokes
about an obscure grammatical mark that another member couldn't find on
her keyboard. Everyone laughs at the joke and carry on with their
business.
Afterwards the keyboardist talks to the joker.
K: You know, it hurt my feelings when you joked about my not finding
the m dash on my computer. Actually, I don't think it's there to be
found, and I tried.
[Note: there are three dashes used when writing' the hyphen "-" the
shorter "n" dash: –, often used for separating terms and the longer "m"
dash: —, used to separate clauses.]
J: Ah, what's your beef? I had trouble finding it as well. I didn't even know the difference myself until grad school.
K: Well, I didn't appreciate it.
J: Oh, the m dash isn't such a big deal. Two dashes work fine.
K: Not that, well. Oh, never mind.
J: Oh, You think that was a put down?
K: Yeah.
J: I didn't mean anything by it. We have had had our own struggles to learn grammar.
K: Okay. I guess.
When we approach the same norm violation from the view of
Group Learning,
we have a different attitude among the members and a learning by
everyone. Group Learning implies that everyone, that is all members
attending the meeting, appreciate that a norm was violated in a group
meeting context (the very arena for Group Rules) that one member made
note of it, and that
appropriate acknowledgments and adjustments
will be made to self-educate members on how that Rule is to be honored.
(One reason this language is so convoluted is that we are not used to
speaking of the nuances of collective learning and understanding, so the
language lacks expressive power in the sense of short words or phrases
that get to what I mean.)
Every group seeking to
improve needs stated times where members
reflect on personal and collective positive contributions to the group's
cohesion and work as well and what had detracted from group success.
The
After Meeting Review (AMR) perfectly serves this role. Search on the more common term
"after action review" for articles to read about this concept.
Basically the AMR is adapted from procedures used by airline flight crews and forest firejumpers after their shifts for
Group Reflection and Learning. Because it's immediate and the concerns have just a single instance (are therefore
smaller than if a member 'collected' violations only to dump them all at one time on the Group), the meeting can be very
brief and highly
effective for learning. Recall that our childhood "lesson" about hot stoves were quite brief yet
survive within us to this day.
Back to our keyvboardist/joker situation. Picture a group of eight. The
facilitating member reminds the group that they need to conclude with
the customary after meeting review. After a round of every member
sharing something they contributed, our keyboardist speaks up:
K: It might not seem a big deal, but it hurt my feelings a little when
you joked about my not being able to find the m dash key combination.
Writing has not been easy for me, I did the best I could with my
section. I had hoped for something closer to praise for even finishing
it, not jokes about a silly m dash!
Member 1 (Joker): I didn't mean anything. I myself had no clue about m dashes until grad school 5 years ago.
Member 2: You know your section was great. Sorry about laughing about the m dash thing.
Member 3: We may all sometimes feel anxious about our writing, thanks
for reminding us to be more supportive. You did do a great job, by the
way.
Keyboardist: Thanks.
In this
Group Learning context the whole group learned (and all
had laughed at the joke) that it hurt a member's feelings to joke around
with her about that. It was sensitive for her, but
not yet a big deal,
even her comment included a joke about "silly m dashes." And that's the
point, this discussion happens when nothing is a big deal, except the
chance to
learn together and sustain a bond.
This way to
Group Learning by Group Reflection on Group Rules doesn't
seem natural much less doable and so is resisted at the conceptual
level. In practice, a group quickly gets the hang of it, and can
actually
feel the Learning taking hold as it improves at the next opportunity based on feedback given during the after meeting review.
GUIDELINES FOR AFTER MEETING REVIEWS (AMR)
"The Army's After Action Review (AAR) is arguably one of the most
successful organizational learning methods yet devised. Yet, most every
corporate effort to graft this truly innovative practice into their
culture has failed because, again and again, people reduce the living
practice of AAR's to a sterile technique." — Peter Senge
Purpose and Benefits
The
After Meeting Review (AMR) is a specific variant of the After
Action Review (AAR). The main difference is that the AMR brings team
attention to the specific details of how it conducts its meetings. The
AAR can have a much larger scope and help a team take a retrospective
view of its activities and results. The AMR is the specific case—AAR the
general one.
Not only the Army, but firefighters, forest fire jumpers, commercial
airline flight crews, air traffic controllers and some surgery teams use
AAR to learn, share their personal perceptions of what occurred during
their shift, and find ways to adjust
their exceptions and behaviors (learn) to improve performance.
The habit of predictable and consistent use of AMR benefits teams by
- Sharing perceptions and feelings immediately after the meeting while it's fresh in team members' minds and everyone is still present.
- Providing a time for a nonjudgmental, equal status review of
the team's actions. The least senior and most senior team members have
equal participation and status during AMR's. The same applies, too, for
the highest status (the "leader") and the lowest status team members.
- Building confidence across the team that members will take appropriate actions at the appropriate times.
- Aligning—by discussion and comparing experiences—separate member perceptions into a common team perspective on events.
- Providing a formal time for clarifying team communication and reducing conflict.
- Activating, honoring, and respecting "team rules."
The When and How of AMR
When The AMR should review the actions of the team near the end
of a meeting. What is discussed, of course, depends on what happened.
Usually, expect an AMR to take five minutes or less. Vary the comments
as necessary; take longer when required by circumstances.
How Creating a set sequence for comments helps the team use this time well.
Sample sequence:
Begin AMR (See notes after the end of these steps for additional explanations.)
- Facilitator: “Two things I did well this meeting were A and B.”
- Notetaker: “Two things I did well this meeting were C and D.”
- [Team members} “I (we, the team) helped our meeting today by E.”
- Facilitator: “One thing I (we) could improve on for next time is F.”
- Notetaker: “One thing I (we) could improve on for next time is G.”
- [Team members} “One thing I (we) could improve on for next time is H.”
-
Other comments for improvement (from anyone).
End Sample Sequence
Notes for Step(s):
1-3. Allowing the facilitator, recorder and members to offer
their own positive self-evaluations begins the AMR on an upbeat. It also
avoids one member “volunteering” to be the team “evaluator” or
“expert.” If a team member is practicing a skill for the first time,
this offers them a chance to share some of their pre-meeting anxieties
and satisfaction with how well matters turned out. There’s a limit of
two as a way to help members constrain how much time they take speaking.
4-6. Similar principle as noted for the first three steps, this
time team members volunteer where they may improve. It works because it
is self-chosen, achievable, and preserves of the speaker’s self-esteem.
7. Whenever possible, it is best for team members to phrase
suggestions in neutral or positive language. “We took 20 minutes on
check-in today” may be enough for team members to be reminded that
meeting time is short and to offer briefer check-ins at the next
meeting. This is preferred over: “Because of our long-windedness we
spent too much time socializing at the beginning and had to rush through
some important items.”
