International Association of Facilitators
1999 Annual Meeting
Williamsburg, Virginia, USA

January 14-17, 1999

Thread #2: Group Planning

Keeping the Drive Alive: Lessons From a Search Conference

Terry Swango,
Principal
Terry Swango & Associates
5551 Chowning Way
Columbus, OH 43213
(614) 755-2012 (phone & fax)
tsswango@concentric.net

William R. Matthews,
Senior Consultant
Prism Performance Systems
37000 Grand River Avenue, Suite 230
Farmington Hills, MI 48335
(248) 474-8855 phone
(248) 474-1116 fax
bmattmi@aol.com

Abstract

In 1997, Richard Beckhard said, "OD is dead. It is the fertilizer for the future." How can one of the founders of OD be so outrageous - or so insightful? In recent years, OD trend setters have moved beyond its traditional action research methods, finding them, in some instances, slow and unresponsive to the need of organizations to change quickly. This shift has given rise to a number of innovations applying open systems theory to create wide-spread commitment and rapid change in large systems.

A revised list of OD practitioner competencies published by the Organizational Development Network now includes the skills for planning and conducting large group interventions (LGI). What makes LGI unique and so relevant to the times and our field of HR/OD? Getting "the whole system in the room" to produce a critical mass of internal and external stakeholders who engage in:

• understanding the need for change,
• analyzing the current reality,
• deciding what needs to change,
• generating ideas for how to change, and
• implementing the change and insuring that it happens
• learning as teams and organizations.

This session will focus on one such large group intervention that is gaining increasing interest and acceptance around the world -- the Search Conference and its application to one organization’s strategic change efforts.

What Is A Search Conference?

Overview

A search conference (SC) is a participative approach to planned change that engages the learning, history and creativity of groups to collectively create a plan that its members themselves take responsibility for implementing.

Organizations and business units have found it to be an effective method for fast-paced, participative strategic planning for today’s uncertain and chaotic business environment. Community groups have used the process to bring diverse constituencies together to work on issues of common concern.

Objectives

Though the objectives for a given SC depend on the outcomes defined, some common objectives include:

• searching the environment to identify changes that impact the system

• examining the past, present and future of the system to create an "ideal future" scenario
• uncovering constraints to the ideal future and identifying a realistic and achievable future
• developing strategies and action plans to implement the achievable future

Outcomes

Since each SC is a unique event, customized to fit the specific needs of a given organization, business unit, or community group, outcomes vary based on the individual design of the "Search." Commonly achieved outcomes include:

• new strategies for growth or renewal
• shared visions for a more productive and humane workplace
• new forums for collaborative decision making and innovation
• new alliances, coalitions and partnerships for resolving complex problems
• mobilization of community groups around critical issues of common concern

Benefits

Unlike other processes that result in reports that gather dust, the Search experience generates enthusiasm as it taps into the creative energies of the participants. The SC requires direct participation in the creation of action plans and commitment to move forward collectively and individually.

Foundation

Search Conferencing has been around for nearly forty years. The Search has proven to be an ideal tool for communities and regional planning authorities, organizations, private businesses, work groups and public agencies, and groups of organizations or formal and informal associations.

According to Search Conference pioneer, Merrelyn Emery, "within a Search Conference (SC), people Search and are Searching for the most adaptive relationship between themselves and their environment. The SC is a method of ecological adaptation," (M. Emery, 1994). The assumptions underlying the Search Conference process are that people:

• are purposeful
• can, under the appropriate conditions, be ideal seeking
• want to learn, and want to create
• prefer to exercise control over their futures
• understand that common purpose is powerful, and
• work more effectively from a common ground perspective than a conflict/compromise perspective.

Search Conferences are structured at the process level. A few ground rules help drive the participation and insure successful outcomes. These include the following:

• all perceptions are valid
• participation is equal and open regardless of position/status
• perceptions are spoken and recorded on flip charts
• no presenters, lectures, keynotes, training, games, etc.
• people are self-managing and responsible for tasks/outcomes.

Logistics and Delivery

The keys to a successful SC include the following elements:

• leadership commitment and support
• up-front contracts and agreements to honor outputs
• getting the "right" system in the room
• asking the "right" question

As a result, the Search is actually the middle piece of a three-part process (see Figure 1) that begins with the pre-planning meetings that address the elements in the bullet points above. It ends with the report writing and follow-up to implementation.

Figure 1

"Standard" Search Conference Design

The Search Conference itself generally lasts two or more consecutive days depending on the complexity of the issues and size of the group. The preferred sequence of time as suggested by Emery and Purser (1996) is to start the Search with a half-day afternoon/evening session, followed by an all day session, and ending with a half-day morning closing session.

The SC is "facilitated" by a Conference Manager whose job is to keep people on track and moving forward toward action. The conference manager really tries to stay out of the role of facilitator as we commonly understand it. The role of the Conference Manager includes:

• Consulting with the planning group in Search Conference preparation
• Managing and ensuring an optimum learning environment
• Managing group dynamics and time
• Staying out of content
• Designing the structure and plan of the Search Conference

It is important that the frame of the Search remain around what the Emerys call "puzzle learning" where people are open to outcome rather than attached to outcome.

Lessons From A Search

Our session is primarily about what happens after the Search Conference is over. How you keep that drive and momentum alive, rather than how you conduct a Search. Therefore, rather than detailing our Search’s every step, we will focus our remarks on the lessons we learned as conference manager and conference planner/participant.

Some Background

Our Search Conference was conducted in December of 1997. The organization in question is a small Midwestern firm of approximately thirty-five full-time employees and over one-hundred-and-fifty contract employees. The organization has been in existence for over ten years, started by three owners who combined their two organizations into one.

The scenario was complicated by the fact that the organization’s "product" was training and consulting services (so virtually everyone in the room, as consultants, had their own idea about what needed to occur). All employees were invited to participate in the Search along with representatives of the contractor group and someone from the organization’s accountants. This was "the system" as defined by the conference planning group.

The Search was further complicated by a life-threatening illness that hit the organization’s president just before the scheduled event. Because of the effects of the illness he was unable to attend and participate. His absence was a significant challenge since was seen as the organization’s visionary leader.

The Lessons

The lessons we learned are presented below as bullet points to consider when doing your own Searches rather than absolutes. Each Search Conference is different, in part due to the different "personality" of each organization searching:

• Create a diagonal slice group to plan the search. Each level of the organization should be represented in the group if possible. This gives the plan credibility as group members communicate the plan back to their stakeholders.
• Don’t underestimate the importance of involving leadership in the planning process. Don’t let them abdicate for whatever reason. They must buy into the plan and be clear about their roles before, during and most importantly after the Search.
• It is important that the Search be conducted in the same room each day. This may seem trivial, however, the amount of information generated and charted on the walls is not easy to transport without losing pages or flow.
• If an important member of the organization (i.e. emotional leader, etc.) cannot be available for the search, try videotaping a message, holding a video or audio conference call or anything else you can think of that demonstrates their support for the conference (memos rarely work in this instance).
• The work of the organization must go on while the Search takes place. As a result, it is doubtful every member of the designated system can/will be there all the time. The planning group should consider this as part of the planning process for the purpose of creating a proactive mechanism for communicating with these people and/or gathering their input.
• Be wary of short changing any of the elements of the conference design, even if the participants push to. Our group felt they did not need to leave with a detailed action plan because they already knew how to create plans (they’re a group of consultants remember). The reality was that they were slowed down after the Search because they didn’t have a detailed plan.
• A member of the leadership team needs to champion the Search’s decisions, actions and other outputs once the search ends. Ideally this should be someone detail oriented who has credibility throughout the various levels of the organization.
• The Search generally results in the formation of a number of workgroups. The organization must find time for these groups to get together to get at least some of their work done. We initially allocated 15-45 minutes of weekly staff meeting time for groups to do their work.
• Invariably, barriers will appear that challenge the plan such as workgroups failing to keep their commitments. The group as a whole needs to deal with this, not the conference manager or the organization’s leadership. The role of leadership is to keep the group pressing forward, making sure they resolve issues and concerns, not resolving them for the group.
• As with life, change that results from a Search Conference is not continuous. There will be periods of activity or up times, and periods when energy is down. Expect that to occur, but having milestones in place and having workgroups regularly report progress to the group as a whole can help keep the down times to a minimum.
• Celebrate the small successes. Search Conferences result in strategic plans, some looking three-to-five years out. Don’t wait until everything is accomplished to recognize change.
• The success of a Search is more about keeping commitments than taking action. Action taken without commitment is half-hearted. If the group, or members of the group regularly break commitments, or if energy around commitment seems to be waning ("who cares if . . ."), leadership must challenge the group, to bring about the return of commitment. If, on the other hand, commitment of leadership wanes, the whole thing is likely to fall apart.

If We Could Do It Over

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. This Search like most, had some successes and some "not-so-successes". As we look back almost a year later, here are some things we would do differently if we could:

• Require that all sessions be held in the same location and same room. Our group had to move to a different site. This created downtime, confusion, and inhibited the group process somewhat. More lead-time between the announcement of the Search and the event would have increased the likelihood that a single location would have been available for the duration.
• Require participants to attend all sessions of the Search. Some of the highly vocal and influential members of this group had previous commitments with clients, which made them miss the opening session. Others missed a subsequent session or parts of it. This is a tricky situation to handle. The group certainly wanted and needed their input. To some, it sent a message that people could "get out of" participating. In reality it meant that there were some frustrations and potential conflicts when these individuals wanted to revisit issues previously worked and agreed upon by the rest of the group. Again, more lead-time between the announcement of the Search and the event would have helped. More importantly, a statement by top management about the importance of attendance at all sessions would help avoid the problem. Short of that, we would suggest an up-front ground rule about not revisiting an issue unless the entire group agrees.
• Make sure the group left with some sort of plan in place so that their work after the Search would build on what they had already started rather than having them to start building action plans.

When we suggest that we would "require" or "make sure" what we really mean is stressing the importance of. As conference managers we must remain focused on the fact that this is the group’s Search, not ours. They need to make a commitment to the process, agenda, outputs and consequences. Forcing constraints on them is contrary to the idea of a participative democracy.

References

Bunker, Barbara Benedict and Alban, Billie T. (1997). Large Group Interventions: Engaging the Whole System for Rapid Change. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, Inc.

Emery, Merrelyn and Purser, Ronald E. (1996). The Search Conference: A Powerful Method for Planning Organizational Change and Community Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Emery, Merrelyn. (1994). The Search Conference in the USA Today: Clarifying Some Confusions. Canberra, ACT: Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University.

Emery, Merrelyn. (1993). Participative Design for Participative Democracy. Canberra, ACT: Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University.

The Presenters

Terry Swango is a senior associate of Prism Performance Systems and principle of Terry Swango and Associates. His specialties are systems change, program development, design and delivery. He has been involved with personal, professional and organizational development through consultation and training since 1976.

Terry has worked with a number of major corporations as well as with agencies of local, state, and federal government. He has provided training to thousands of people in such areas as facilitation skills, culture change, presentation skills, communication skills, motivation, team building, and the uses of intuition and creativity in management.

Terry has an on-going interest in large system change and the tools for such change. Specifically, he has used Search Conferences (as developed by Emery and Trist) to help systems better involve key stakeholders in the process of charting future direction for the organization. He is also exploring methods of increasing openness in large group discussion to improve the opportunity for the dialogue to occur.

William (Bill) Matthews is a senior consultant for Prism Performance Systems. He specializes in the areas of large-scale participative change, team and leadership development, Organizational Engineering and experiential learning.

Bill is a frequent speaker and writer on experiential learning, and has presented at numerous national conferences. His activity designs appear in several publications including McGraw-Hill’s Handbook of Team and Organizational Development and Training and Human Resource Development (1997 & 1998 editions). He is also co-author, with Prism’s Tom Buck, of 101 Ways to Power Up Your Job Search, also published by McGraw-Hill.

In addition to his work at Prism, Bill is an adjunct lecturer in education at the University of Michigan. He has held adjunct faculty positions at Wayne State University’s School of Medicine, and has trained with Merrelyn Emery, co-developer of the search conference and participative design workshop methodologies.