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.
Knowing the context and observing the interactional difference within the suggestions above may be a skeleton-key that is close enough to open the door to cooperation, then create some momentum towards useful change.
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.
Making the things that are not noticed, noticeable creates deviation from the norm for change.
A few members admitted that they were afraid they would be eliminating their own jobs if they improved the process.
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.
Team members develop trust and learn how to work as a team when they are faced with challenges that none of them have solved before. They need to use and learn from each other how to navigate the challenge.
What is seen as strong personalities may be competent people doing what they think is right – in many different directions. I suggest that a manager or team leader focuses on the team structure and access to resources instead of playing psychologist.
When a team is working well you see people listening, arriving on time, asking questions, having high trust, showing support. How do we create norms for inputs / causes that make a team good?
Opening agenda for a 12 month Leadership Development Process led by Leadership Niagara.