Fostering a Continuous-Learning Mindset in a Federal Research Organization

Organization Development Journal, Summer 2007 by Elstein, Kenneth, Driver, Kathy

Following the post-exercise debriefing, we provide participants with guidance on the structure of effective appreciative questions and on how to move the dialog through a "progressive inquiry cycle" (Figure 3), modeled on the AI "4-D Cycle" (Whitney, 2003, p. 6). In addition, we provide examples of how this method could be applied to ensure a "right-column"approach in a variety of workplace settings (Figure 2). Many participants have found this scenario-based resource, in particular, to be a useful on-the-job reference.

For the second exercise, we choose a more difficult task and encourage participants to take on more responsibility for the debriefing. We make the second exercise more difficult than the first for two reasons: first, to increase stress and appreciation for how stress can readily cause conversations and attitudes to revert to the "left column." second, it increases the likelihood of an "imperfect" outcome, thus enabling participants to experience how carefully structured appreciative questions can turn an otherwise "left-column" conversation into a valuable learning experience by evoking positive images of future success, a fundamental tenet of AI (Cooperrider, 2001). Indeed, our experience has been that, when participants embrace this approach following an imperfect outcome, they become energized with new knowledge rather than discouraged by feelings of failure. Through this experience, they come to appreciate the profound influence that simple questions can have on the direction and quality of a discussion (Cooperrider, 2001; Thatchenkery, 2006; Stavros and Torres, 2005). Admittedly, the extent to which groups are able to self-facilitate the debriefings varies considerably and, in many cases, their struggle to articulate meaningful questions is, itself, an important learning experience and must be well facilitated. As such, we record and subsequently share the particularly noteworthy questions that emerged during the debriefing.

The second half of the day-long workshop consists of three components: a simple framework for productive discussions, a module on valuing diverse perspectives, and role plays. The discussion framework consists of five stages: 1) ensuring understanding of and alignment with the goal, 2) providing context to increase knowledge and awareness, 3) inviting divergence, 4) moving to convergence, and 5) moving to details and commitments. In this context, we also provide several common groupmanagement techniques for the 3 middle phases: increasing awareness (e.g., EL and AI interviews), inviting divergence (e.g., brainstorming and quiet-storming techniques) and moving to convergence (e.g., Open Space [Owen, 1997]). The module on valuing diverse perspectives is geared toward increasing participants'awareness of differing personality types, as described in the Myers-Briggs model (Briggs Myers, 2003). In the final component of the generic course, participants have the opportunity to apply everything they have learned thus far in a role play. For a division-specific course (versus those opened to any interested employees), we also weave in discussions of their specific issues throughout the day culminating in a discussion about potential innovative "right-column"approaches to their intransigent issues (often drawing upon questions in Figure 3), and specific action items to achieve them.