Team building for strategic planning

Susan, the executive director of a center for independent living in the eastern part of the United States, called to talk about strategic planning for her organization. "We leave a small staff, a huge number of clients spread over a wide geographical area, and very limited funding," she pointed out. "I'm very concerned about our future, but even more so about my staff and their increasing workload." She then asked, "Do you have some ideas about how to help us?"

This particular center for independent living was established in the late 1980s to serve people with disabilities in seven counties of the state. It soon became incorporated as a private, nonprofit organization. The center presently has a staff of eight, 80% of whom have disabilities themselves. The staff has both the training and the experience to understand the challenges of living independently.

Susan noted, "They know firsthand about the fear and self-doubt that must be overcome to build an independent lifestyle."

The decision to help this group for a minimum fee was not difficult to make. Susan concluded by noting, "The staff has a deep commitment to assist other people with disabilities in becoming more independent."

As a consultant, I suspected that this learning experience would be a reciprocal one for the organization and for me. We undertook strategic planning.

PLANNING TO PLAN

Strategic planning is a process by which an organization envisions its future, then develops and implements the steps necessary to achieve that future (Goodstein, Nolan, & Pfeiffer, 1992; Pfeiffer, Goodstein, & Nolan, 1989). Bryson (1997) provides additional insight for nonprofit organizations by emphasizing the link between strategic planning and leadership. I agreed to serve as a process consultant. A process consultant is trained in group dynamics and organizational development and provides guidance to groups and organizations interested in influencing change (Kormanski & Eschbach, 1997).

A meeting with Susan began the planning process. We discussed our leadership roles, as well as the overall purpose, direction, data collection, and timeline. Susan explained, "I want this plan to serve as a guide for the board of directors and the staff of the organization to develop and monitor our goals for the next few years."

Managing change is a key function for any strategic planning process (Hayes, Kormanski, Kormanski, & Hayes, 1993). The design of activities to accomplish this purpose included a review of the past, an analysis of the present, and a vision for the future (Weisbord & Janoff, 1995). Specific activities were a mission update, clarification of the organization's values, a force field analysis, a review of the "prouds and sorrys" from the staff, identification of critical issues, action planning, and creation of a vision. A full-day workshop format was chosen to begin this process to influence change using as a basis the action planning theories of Kurt Lewin (1951).

When Susan inquired who should be involved in this process, the answer was simple: Everyone. Susan then asked, "Could we use this process for staff team building?"

After giving the matter some thought, the design was altered to accommodate this request. The board of directors also was invited, although the directors' work schedules were such that few were expected to attend.

INTEGRATING MODELS

To integrate the team-building component with the strategic planning design and the overall process to influence change, group and team development models were selected from Tuckman & Jensen (1977) and Kormanski & Mozenter (1987). These five stage models provide themes and outcomes for both task and relationship dimensions to help understand and assess developmental progress. They also can monitor the progress of the strategic planning process and the impact of change to the organization. The sequential group development stages are called forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. The team outcomes, which are task-oriented, are commitment, clarification, involvement, achievement, and recognition. The outcomes, which are relationship-oriented, are acceptance, belonging, support, pride, and satisfaction. Figure 1 presents this integration of group development stages and team development outcomes.

The process consultant role also includes the roles of process facilitator and process observer (Kormanski & Eschbach, 1997). As a facilitator, the consultant often intervenes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the group. This is particularly important when integrating more than one process into a workshop design. Key planned interventions for achieving integration at each stage of the developmental process, in sequential order, would be building structure during the forming stage; managing conflict during the storming stage; providing help during the norming stage; encouraging risk taking during the performing stage; and bringing meaningful closure during the adjourning stage (Kormanski, 1996).

During the forming stage, the intervention of building structure will be used with the strategic planning team (workshop participants) to encourage acceptance of each other and commitment to the task. Specific activities will focus on the past and include a review and update of the mission of the organization, as well as a discussion of the cultural history and values.

A major activity for the storming stage and the conflict it typically creates will be a force field analysis (commonly called a SWOT analysis), which will examine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the organization. This analysis of the present state of the organization will focus on clarifying perceptions and providing opportunities for belonging.

A review of the prouds and sorrys from the past year is designed to contribute to the norming stage. This examination of the helpfulness of the organization in achieving its desired outcomes identifies the extent of involvement and supportiveness of the staff.

Identification and prioritization of critical issues will be addressed during the performing stage. This intervention will involve encouragement of moderate risk taking to bring about the outcomes of achievement and pride. Action planning will be introduced to determine goals, strategies, and a measurement process (CSI or critical success indicators) for each issue the group chooses to address.

The culminating activity for the adjourning stage is building the vision, to bring meaningful closure to this part of the strategic planning process. The goal of this final component will be to address the organization's future in a way that promotes team recognition and satisfaction.

MISSION AND VALUES

The executive director and the staff set aside a workday for the strategic planning/team building workshop. The advisory board of the organization was invited, but none could attend as a result of work commitments. Interpreters for the deaf were scheduled to provide signing.

As an introductory activity, the facilitator conducted a dialogue, which examined the brief history of the organization and a review of the current mission statement. This was followed by a short presentation about strategic planning and how it can be combined with the process of team building.

Mission

All participants agreed that the mission statement, which was created some years ago, was still relevant. Thus, this statement of the organization's purpose continues to provide direction:

The mission of the center for independent living is to promote and support independent living for persons with physical, sensory, and mental disabilities. The center strives through advocacy and collective action to remove the physical and attitudinal barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from exercising their rights, achieving personal independence, and participating fully in the life of the community. Training and services at the center help empower consumers to take responsibility for their own abilities to live independently.

Values

Although the statement of mission seemed clear and was being implemented, the staff had never attempted to clarify the values of the organization. The facilitator conducted a brief exercise, which had each staff member identify some personal and organizational values. Four consensus values for the organization were selected and validated, as they also were significant components of the mission statement. The four organizational values, which appear to serve as a foundation on which to build the strategic planning process, are:

1. advocacy

2. empowerment

3. support

4. independence

Upon examining their personal values, staff members found that their values were reflected in those of the organization.

The workshop was off to a positive beginning as the team began to form. The staff demonstrated a commitment to the process of strategic planning and a willingness to accept each other as a valuable team member. A workable structure was constructed that was not too tight, nor too loose.

FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS

The storming stage involved healthy conflict, as opposed to the extremes of chaos or apathy. The facilitator reviewed guidelines for conflict management, divided the participants into four dyads, and assigned each dyad a component of the force field analysis. Each dyad completed an initial analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or threats and presented it to the total group for discussion. The lively interchange that followed resulted in a consensus agreement for each item of each component. The facilitator monitored the discussion and provided appropriate feedback to ensure that participants listened with understanding to each other and confronted conflict openly. Figure 2 presents the force field analysis that the workshop participants completed.

The participants thought the analysis provided a thorough self-examination of the organization. In addition, team members noted how much of their efforts to maintain healthy conflict levels were directed toward clients and funding sources. The former involved moving clients away from a state of apathy, and the latter involved moving the funding sources closer to the organization to avoid chaos. Apathetic clients required ever larger amounts of time and energy from the staff, and chaotic decreases in funding reduced these valuable resources.

PROUDS AND SORRIES

The morning segment of the workshop concluded with an exercise in which participants reviewed the past year and identified events about which they were most proud and those about which they were most sorry. Multivoting was used to select the organization's proudest prouds and sorriest sorrys.

Staff members were most proud of their ability to work as a team and of their viable programs that made a difference in people's lives. They also were proud of the positive impact they made to client's lifestyles and their sensitivity to the needs of co-workers.

The members regretted (they preferred "regret" to "sorry") that people with disabilities still had so many unmet needs because of the lack of specific programs. They also believe the organization is not respected enough i- the local communities they serve.

Participants began to express more confidence as the workshop progressed. They became more involved in both the discussion and the decision making pertaining to the strategic planning process. They also demonstrated genuine concern for the individual differences of their co-workers. The prouds-and-sorrys review created an atmosphere of helpful support for the entire staff.

CRITICAL ISSUES

The afternoon began with the identification of critical issues facing the organization as the team entered the performing stage. Each individual issue was listed on flip chart pages. Issues then were assessed as being more operational or more strategic (Bryson, 1997). Operational issues are narrow and more present-oriented, require fewer resources, and usually have obvious solutions. Strategic issues are broad, more future-oriented, require multiple resources, and solutions usually are unclear. Operational issues are a part of the day-to-day functioning of the organization and usually are the responsibility of someone or some unit. The operational issues were identified and assigned to the appropriate individual or unit. Reports of actions taken were to be given at subsequent staff meetings. The issues remaining were listed on a separate flip-chart page and were designated as being strategic.

Each strategic issue was defined and clarified. Multi-voting was used to rank-order all of the strategic issues. The staff then selected three strategic issues to address during the next 2 to 3 years as most organizations can adequately work on two to four strategic issues at any one time. The strategic issues that the participants selected were:

1. Alternate funding sources.

2. Public respect and recognition.

3. Reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act.

Workshop participants self-selected an issue team with which to work. Each team conducted a trend analysis concerning its issue, then began action planning. The trend analysis examined political, economic, social, and technological (PEST's) trends (Goodstein, Pfeiffer, & Nolan, 1992). Action planning steps included goal setting, strategy selection, and development of critical success indicators to measure progress toward the goals.

As the staff began to work interdependently and engage in problem solving, the facilitator encouraged taking moderate risks and being willing to accept modest failures, which have to be viewed as valuable learning experiences. The group responded with unusually high energy and productivity. In addition, participants began to balance the serious side of the workshop tasks with some good-natured humor. People began having fun as they worked.

THE VISION

The final activity of the workshop was to create a vision for the organization. Using data from the day's previous interactions, the participants engaged in a dialogue about what they want the organization to become. The facilitator stressed paying attention to the values, mission, and strategic issues that had been developed already. As the time to conclude the workshop drew near, the vision emerged from this dialogue. The vision the participants created proved to be an excellent vehicle for bringing meaningful closure to the adjourning stage of the group development sequence. In their comments, team members recognized and rewarded team performance. They also encouraged and appreciated comments about team efforts.

The vision states:

The center for independent living will become a financially stable and vital community resource with proactive consumers. The staff of the center will become more knowledgeable concerning fund-raising techniques. They will use trend analysis and networking to influence legislation. The delivery of quality services will be characterized by the implementation of the values of advocacy, empowerment, support, and independence.

AN ONGOING PROCESS

The action planning component of goals, strategies, and critical success indicators invites continuous assessment at periodic intervals. In fact, when everyone is involved at this level, the entire staff becomes accountable for achieving the desired outcomes and moving the organization closer to its vision.

To conclude the workshop, the facilitator engaged in a dialogue with the participants to evaluate the experience. In addition to the many positive comments, participants expressed concern that none of the advisory board members was able to attend. It also was suggested that the attendance of consumers of the center's services would have been valuable and could be invited when the strategic plan is reviewed and updated. The entire staff was pleased with the productive effort but also noted the need for continuous commitment to and monitoring of the strategic planning process.

TEAM-BUILDING REVIEW

Strategic planning works best when it is a team effort and involves team members from all levels of the organization. Team building is more effective when the team works on real tasks that have meaning for the organization. The use of models and theories provides everyone with a set of realistic expectations concerning team development stages, themes, and outcomes (Kormanski, 1998). In addition, they can be used as diagnostic tools to identify blockages and suggest interventions.

The Team Development Rating Scale (Kormanski & Mozenter, 1987) is an instrument that can be used to assess readiness for team building and as a feedback mechanism to monitor progress during the life of the team. Figure 3 presents the Team Development Rating Scale, which emphasizes group dynamics, behavioral themes, measurable outcomes, and performance feedback using team member ratings. This rating scale is based upon stages of group development. Each stage is represented by a task dimension and a relationship dimension (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). A common theme describes each of the behavioral (forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning) stages. The Team Development Rating Scale provides two performance outcomes for each stage-one to assess task behavior (the odd-numbered items) and one to assess relationship behavior (the even-numbered items).

A simple Likert-type rating scale is used for each of 10 outcomes. Each item is rated on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high). A behavioral description is also available for each outcome. The 10 outcomes on a 10-point scale provide for 100 total points, which then can be equated to a percentage score. Each team member selects the rating that best describes his or her team on each outcome. Only team averages are given as feedback, thereby protecting the anonymity of the individual. Kormanski (1998) provides reliability and validity data to demonstrate the usefulness of the instrument.

SUMMARY

Strategic planning and team building are complementary processes. Each enhances the effectiveness of the other. Team building provides ownership and involvement for the members of the staff, and strategic planning adds a real task that is essential for the organization's survival. Both offer opportunities for shared leadership and increase the possibilities for achieving the organization's vision.

REFERENCES

Bryson, J. M. (1997). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations (2d ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodstein, L. D., Nolan, T. M., & Pfeiffer, J. W. (1992). Applied strategic planning: A comprehensive guide. San Diego: Pfeiffer. Hayes, R. L., Kormanski, C. L., Kormanski, L. M., & Hayes, B. A. (1993). The school counselor and strategic planning: A skills development approach. New York State Journal for Counseling and Development 8(2), 71-76.

Kormanski, C. L. (1999). The team: Explorations in group process. Denver: Love.

Kormanski, C. L. (1996). Group development and total quality management teams. In S. T. Gladding (ed.), Group counseling and group process (pp. 111-113), Greensboro, NC: ERIC/CASS. Kormanski, C. L. & Eschbach, L. (1997). From grov.leader to process consultant. In H. Forrester-Miller & J. A. Kottler (Eds.), Issues and challenges for group practitioners (pp. 133-164). Denver: Love. Kormanski, C. L., & Mozenter, A. (1987). A new model of team building: A technology for today and tomorrow. In J. W. Pfeiffer (Ed.), The 1987 annual: Developing human resources (pp. 255-268). San Diego: Pfeiffer. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.

Pfeiffer, J. W., Goodstein, L. D., & Nolan, T. M. (1989). Shaping strategic planning: Frogs, dragons, bees, and turkey tails. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psycho

logical Bulletin, 63, 384-399.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427. Weisbord, M. R., & Janoff, S. (1995). Future search. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

The author is indebted to Susan VanScoyoc, Executive Director, and the staff of the Center for Independent Living of Southcentral Pennsylvania for their participation in the workshop and their contributions to this article. Dr. Kormanski is a process consultant for business and education. He is a past president of the Association for Specialists in Group Work and maintains a private consulting firm in Hollidaysburg, PA.

Copyright Love Publishing Company Mar 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved