Getting to In-Depth Contradictions
(Used in Japan ICAI Global Conference session by Bill Staples)

Group: 20 environmentalists ready to blame global government for not doing enough, a number of first languages with spotty translation.

Conversation:
What irritates you about today’s environmental situation? Get a few answers.
Who do you like to blame regarding the situation?
What do you think is lacking regarding this situation?
What are some of the issues? (I did not actually ask this question in Japan, but would have if there had been time.)

Does this seem to be getting us anywhere?

Let’s go around the table.
What is one thing that you personally do that implicates you in the situation, or that makes things worse? Go around the room and get everyone to say one thing.

Now this is interesting. We have a nice list here.

Now get into teams of 3 and discuss, “Why is it that we allow this situation to continue? What is it about this situation that makes it so difficult to deal with?”

Give me a good analysis of 3 points on why we allow this situation to continue. Discuss in the language of your choice. Translate the sentence to English.

Take 20 minutes in small groups.

Write your analysis in complete sentences.
Put up your analysis on the wall.


Variation:
Group of 8 government managers
Refer to levels of discernment (contradictions hints, strategic planning manual)
What irritates you? I wrote this on cards on the wall.
Who do you like to blame? I wrote this on cards on the wall.
What is lacking? I wrote this on cards on the wall.
What are some issues? I wrote this on cards on the wall.
What is blocking us?

Then we clustered the cards and completed the consensus workshop method.

1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

We did take the data and had a group from the planning session pot all the survey data. Very interesting to note the following
1. We added one Obstacle. The topic had been mentioned in the vision and actions to deal with the Obstacle were in the Strategies. The group thought it was important to add so the employees knew they had been heard about the issue.
2. All the data fit. The only columns/clusters that did not have data added to them, were ones that had been brought in by the clients being served. They had some new requests. Said to me the employees were very much in touch with what is going on.
3. One title changed -- when we had all the data up, we checked if the titles still held the intent with the new data. One title got expanded to incorporate the new data. It did not however change the real intent of the column.

2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?