In my research within organizations and informal discussions the idea of trust, felt-fairness, liberty, being unencumbered to complete your work without some asshole (or manipulative procedure) constricting you, are what most people want from their employer.
It has proven very useful to invest enough time for the definition of the goal. The more you talk about it, the clearer and more relevant it becomes. It is important to be very concrete when it comes to team goals and future actions.
People are social, and our understanding of who can help me solve a challenge or add value to my work remains constant. As we go through fads and phases of “leadership” the common core remains the same.
From our discussion I’m not sure what you need to do. I do know that team or leadership development is not what’s needed at this point. I have questions. From our discussion we may be better able to determine a progress step that may help.
While a decision within organizations often relies on facts and data, teams must agree upon a method of decision-making based on that data.
Understanding that we cannot borrow best-practices from someone else, we needed to define Quality Improvement Current Behaviors within the context of the current organizations capacity, resources, attractors, repellents, and skills. Working, as a team, through the questions and responses we arrived a shared vision and co-constructed plan.
Using the current environment and resources as good enough (because the team / person created and works that environment) respects the interactive nature of work and may bring change about through a small nudge as opposed to a prescriptive yank.
Dialog with a team on how they view a challenge, opportunity or space. Shared understanding of what a team accepts it must also reject some aspect. Understanding and dialog of how each person and the collective group views a challenge, opportunity or space.
Few tasks have clear right and wrong answers. Even when teams have specific output, quality, and time-frame measures that does not reflect upon effectiveness.
In the model is Low/High Community and Low/High Support. This combination is being used to make sense of which quadrant a person is currently and if they desire, or what an external force (manager, teacher, partner, stakeholder, community organizer, etc..) can try / experiment with to support the person to use the community and how the community can support the person to learn.