Deeper (but not too deep) into obstacles

From the 2nd edition of Agendashift – no dates on that yet, I’m still on chapter 1! – a followup to a post from January, The language of outcomes: 2. Framing obstacles.

One topic for last week’s Lean Coffee-style #community Zoom (see the channel of that name in Slack) was how to deal with “Lack of quality”, an obstacle that never sat well with me. Which of our checks for poor framing are failed by this obstacle? Potentially several of them! Based on our very helpful discussion, I’ll be updating the workshop exercise Deeper (but not too deep) into obstacles and below is the relevant extract from the 2nd edition.

For context, We’ve done the Ideal and Obstacles parts of the True North exercise (see last week’s post) and will soon move into Outcomes, completing the IdOO pattern (or one realisation of it):[image error]

For your opportunity to experience all of this, check out the two Leading with outcomes (aka IdOO!) workshops listed at the end of this post, both in September.

Deeper (but not too deep) into obstacles

When you’re done, review each obstacle carefully. This isn’t the time for deep analysis – likely under the circumstances to be unhelpfully speculative – but the opportunity avoid some unproductive framing. The objective of this exercise is to reword any poorly-framed obstacles such that they would be recognised by the people closest to the problem and invite the widest possible range of solutions.

Here are some common traps to watch out for:

Scarcity language – obstacles that identify a “lack of” this or that:

Language that suggests a particular kind of solution or relies on a particular theory, thereby excluding others
Language that could be perceived as judgemental
Language that identifies only one side of an imbalance


Tribal shorthand:

Jargon
Finger-pointing
Language that identifies in-groups and out-groups

Often, these are easy to recognise. For example:

“Lack of a knowledge management system”, which very obviously identifies a solution, not the obstacle it is supposed to overcome
“Lack of the X mindset” (for some X) – over-generalising a potential multitude of real obstacles, too theoretical to be universally received, and prone to failing the tests for judgemental and in-group/out-group language
“Lack of people/money/time”, which fails to acknowledge the demand/workload management side of the equation, often the easier side of the imbalance to address
“Management” (or some other group) – hardly a good place to start when their cooperation will likely be needed to address whatever the real obstacle is

Sometimes it’s more subtle. Consider another common obstacle, “Lack of quality”. Which of our traps apply? Is it judgemental? Finger pointing? Quite possibly! If it might be received that way, try looking at the issue as an imbalance. Now it’s a problem with two or more sides, each with its respective needs and expectations. What stops them from being met? What gets in the way?

Recasting your obstacles this way has two important benefits. The first is that it encourages you to be specific. Specific obstacles are both easier to overcome than over-generalised ones and harder to dismiss. The second is that you increase both your range of possible solutions and their sources, removing unnecessary constraints and unhelpful barriers to agreement. In a nutshell:

Identify real and relevant obstacles, avoiding language that needlessly excludes people or possibility

For participants, that’s a memorable lesson in the language of outcomes. For the host organisation, it’s a lesson in authentic engagement. Expert practitioners must take special care also; with their particular ways of looking at things, they can be especially prone to falling into the traps!

Upcoming workshops

8-9 September, two 2-hour sessions (1 per day), APAC-friendly timing:

Leading with Outcomes (APAC)
17 September, one 2-hour session, EMEA-friendly timing:

Strategic Mapping with Outcomes (EMEA)
22-23 September, two 2-hour sessions (1 per day), Americas-friendly timing:

Leading with Outcomes (Americas)
07 October, one 2-hour session, EMEA-friendly timing:

Probe! Stories, Hypotheses, Challenges, and Experiments (EMEA)

Agendashift, the wholehearted engagement model

Links: Home | About  |  Our mission: Wholehearted  |  Become an Agendashift partner  |  Assessments  | Books | Resources | Events | Contact | Mike | Subscribe

Workshops: Transformation strategy | Transformation strategy | Short training

Blog: Monthly roundups | Classic posts

Community: Slack | LinkedIn group | Twitter