This is much harder than it looks

  This is much harder than it looks 
  Originally uploaded by Bitterjug

"People are much more likely to act their way into a new way of thinking, than think their way into a new way of acting."
wrote Richard T. Pascale in his book Delivering Results, (pub: 1999), reinforcing Peter Senge's thoughts about the Learning Model documented in The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (pub. 1994).  Senge writes about Practice Fields summarised here:
 

LEARNING LABORATORIES. The vision guiding research in management learning laboratories (or "micro-worlds") is to design and construct effective practice fields for management teams --constructed microcosms of real-life settings in which management teams can learn how to learn together. This concept can best be explained by analogy. In many domains, such as sports and performing arts, team learning is the norm, rather than the exception. For example, a great symphony orchestra performs well only after extensive practice. It is impossible to imagine a chamber music ensemble learning without rehearsal. Yet that is exactly what we expect to occur in our organisations. In organizations, this continual movement between practice and performance is rare and must be created to help organizational teams learn.
 

In order to think about something, it is necessary to convert the input (sensory impressions, concepts, experiences, etc.) into symbols that stand for what you have sensed. All words are symbols, and as such are abstractions. They often have different meanings to different people and can lead to vague, ambiguous understandings. For a team to build a shared vision they must have a shared understanding, an awareness of the meaning the words they use. Some important words have almost as many definitions as the number of people you ask; words like insight innovation,design and creativity definitely fall into this category. So I searched for definitions that I am, at this moment in time, happy with (not necessarily comfortable with)  and that help challenge my observation and interpretation of conventional wisdom. The definitions are posted here.

Bill Jensen's research (in Simplicity) writes that to take different actions we need to find answers to 5 questions:

How is this relevant to what I do?
What, specifically, should I do?
How will I be measured, and what are the consequences?
What tools and support are available?
WIIFM- What's in it for me? for us?

... the most frequently asked question is the one on tools. Jensen continues "Between two-thirds and three-quarters of us are missing the tools or skills we need to successfully do everything that comes at us. But this is an average.. change agents and executives rarely believe tools and support are an issue.

Hopefully the World has moved on since Jensen's original researches but the questions are still relevant

These behavioural questions become , for  CLEAR communication designed to inspire action:

Connected to what I do
List of next steps
Expectations
Ability
Return

Once again it can be the risk factors that reduce the capability of change taking place; which is where the protected play space comes into its own enabling individuals and groups to rehearse new language, new approaches and behaviours in a safer environment; which is a little like ensemble theatre work.. where initial read-through of the text, rehearsals are used to explore, articulate a common vision, and develop an experience (rehearsal; alpha mode); beta test at previews with real 'consumers'; reflect and if necessary tweak before the first night. Of course you could just pick up the play; read the stage instructions, learn and do... what the audience think is a delightfully new experience.. even if the play itself is not new ...context  ...style ...interpretation!

Picture uploaded on by jhritz. Used with thanks under CC.

... so maybe this is what Michael Schrage meant by behaviour around prototypes and iterative capital! Combined with Tudor Rickard's 7 factors characterising  Dream Teams

1. Strong platform of understanding
2. Shared vision
3. Creative climate
4. Ownership of ideas
5. Resilience to setbacks
6. Network activators
7. Learn from experience

and Hilarie Owen's 3 Success Factors

- the level of effort group members put in collectively in carrying out the task;

- the amount of knowledge and skill members bring to the team task;

- the appropriateness of the performance strategies or procedures used by the team in its work to achieve the task"

To enable activity that leads to change in how we do things and what comes out of that (team) activity

(innovation in process and product) we need to ensure that we make available to people the tools and techniques needed to create simplicity, space and self-confidence to deliver innovation at speed.

 

But trying to change and innovate at the same time is weirdly both much easier and much harder than it looks, at the same time, leading to mixed messages back from the team:
"So, you see, it turns out learning to change is much, much harder than it looks, which is why I've been up late every night this week."
 

I'm not sure why, but I know that at the team meetings I attend, people start but then drop out quickly because it's much harder than it looks."

Picture uploaded on by troismarteaux. Used with thanks under CC.
This is where a facilitator/coach can be useful. As one innovation facilitator observed,
"People get discouraged quickly, but I promise if they stay with it, they won't have any regrets," he added. "It's like anything else. You just have to work at it to be good."