Large Group Interventions Case Paper Leadership

Leadership: Large Group Interventions Case Paper

Scenario 1

Future Search seems to be the best option for solving the existing problems of the college that students or employees bring. Since we have no experience running a college before, the complaints and suggestions must be handled carefully. For this matter, Future Search seems valuable as all stakeholders from the concerned departments would be invited to a meeting that would have a top-down approach to designing the future of the college (Norum, 2005, p. 405).

By designing the future, it is meant that the three simple phases of the meeting would help craft the action plan required for eradicating the issues faced at the college currently. The three phases are reviewing the past, where we stand at present, and what the future direction of the college is (Nixon, 1998).

Every stakeholder would have their say in the matter, and the process would be all-inclusive since their opinions would matter as they would be directly related to the issues they face. For example, involving students at this stage would help analyze the situation of educational delivery that is not satisfactory on the students’ end. The self-management and responsibility from the top management and the leadership would be gathered collectively to ponder the formulation of a comprehensive “whole system” (Nixon, 1998). 

The setting of a round table for the stakeholders, preferably eight, as suggested by Future Search design, would be convenient (Leith, 1996). The reason for saying so is that the structure of the conference would facilitate an open flow of conversation leading to the desired future direction of the institute. The shared vision is communicated among all stakeholders since, without any experience running the college, it would be better to take advice from experts. The issues they face would be based on past incidents in the field, and they would know what could work better, which is mandatory for whole system participation (Leith, 1996). Once it is ascertained that stakeholders are on the same page, the purpose of creating a shared vision for setting the right future direction will be attained. 

Scenario 2

Open Space Technology might be suitable in this scenario since there is a conflict between senior executives of finance and management departments and young video game designers. The reason for opting for this method is that the seniors should not be included in this meeting when they have made up their minds already about the solution (Rogers, 2010, p. 103). Similarly, in this scenario, if experienced executives of finance and marketing departments feel they are right, they would not help find a solution. Hence, arriving for and then leaving the meeting when you feel the meeting is not delivering any value to you serves as a major advantage for this method’s usability in this scenario. 

The law of two feet would be relevantly applied in Open Space Technology, making it a feasible option. The law of two feet means moving on wherever the participant feels he can make a worthy contribution (Nixon, 1998). The aim behind Open Space Technology for this scenario is the inclusion of all young video game designers, possibly from all over the world, and the finance and marketing executive, that too from all over the world.

An online meeting could be arranged, which would be open to everyone. Whoever wants to participate would be considered relevant enough to give his input for deciding which of the two directions should be selected (Nixon, 1998). The global participants would let the company’s five founders know what is being followed in every region and how successful they are, whether the majority of success is coming from young video game designers or from what senior executives have to say.

The five founding partners could finalize an overall success rate and arrange as many sessions as they want; for example, the first session is 45 minutes long. It would create a systematic, ongoing process for avoiding haphazard inputs and lead the conversation by adopting a problem-solving approach rather than creating confusion from all sides. 

Traditionally, a round table conference is suggested for the Open Space Technology conference too; however, it is suggested that the online session that anyone from young designers and seniors could join would be direct face-to-face interactions where two-way communication would be the key. A round table set is not applicable here. 

Scenario 3

Open Space Technology might be an appropriate method here since it recommends the involvement of a greater number of people, which the insurance company CEO wants too. If 50 employees from each department are to be invited, then almost 50x3 = 150 (sales department, accounting, and information technology departments) would be invited.

Although this method is not based on invitations criteria since everyone who enters the meetings would be considered relevant. However, the invitations are assumed based on all 50 employees from the three mentioned departments, which means they would be encouraged to participate.

The creative and collaborative approach would help formulate a theme. For establishing a theme, a methodological process would be in place, like one day conference in which time slots would be set, starting from, for example, 9-10:30, and the next session from 10:30 to 12 pm, etc. This would help the facilitator, the CEO, to gauge the theme or outcome extracted from one session to be moved on to the next.

The principle of “when it is over, it is over” would be conveniently applied from one session to the next so that the previous session’s issues are not discussed in the next (Nixon, 1998). They should be left behind when they are discussed in the previous session. It would enhance time saving and keep the conference restricted to one-day rather than stretching it to two or three days (Nixon, 1998). When quick decisions are required, time-saving is obligatory that is purposely gained through Open Space Technology (Nixon, 1998). 

The creative and collaborative action could be created with a round seating as Owen (2008, p. 6) states that a circle is the fundamental indication of human harmony. The seating arrangement naturally facilitates face-to-face views of all participants for establishing content and control (Owen, 2008, p. 6). For example, in the first session, 50 participants are present- 20 from one department and 15 from the rest of the two departments- and the next session calls for the presence of the next quota of employees from the respective departments. The orderly way of bringing interests together would be initiated through a circle arrangement of sitting via Open Space Technology (Owen, 2008, p. 6). 

Scenario 4

The prominent problem starts when it is said that conclusion was made about what the CEO wanted to hear after summarizing the conference findings. As Open Space Technology supports collaboration and creativity coming in from all sides along with “self-managed meetings” (Leith, 1996), the outcomes that would be outlined based on what the CEO wants and not what has been discussed in the sessions would not be fruitful. 

Open Space Technology demands inspiration from all group members, especially when it is said that everyone who participates is the right person (Leith, 1996). If participants are deemed right, their opinions should also be. It could be a major indication of the outcome that after the conference, the employees do not implement the learnings of the conference. They might have felt demotivated that their viewpoints were not valued, and the conclusion only initially specified what the CEO wanted. It is similar to the disadvantage discussed in scenario 2, where Open Space Technology is of no use when seniors have made up their minds already about the decisions (Rogers, 2010, p. 103).