Selecting Methods: The Art of Mastery

selecting methods

one of the foremost researchers and consultants on the power of intuition, states, “In order to

take that path, we have to reject the dilemma. We shouldn’t simply follow our intuitions, as they

can be unreliable and need to be monitored. Yet we shouldn’t suppress our intuitions either,

because they are essential to our decision making and can’t be replaced by analyses and procedures. Thus, our only real option is to strengthen our intuitions so that they become more accurate and provide us with better insights.”3 This is the key to mastery.



Mastering Whole System Change

In reviewing the paths of inventors, developers, and leading voices of established methods, I

uncovered a subtle yet essential shared journey called the Cycle of Mastery (see figure 1). These

masters flow through this cycle in three phases: Method, Blend, and Invention. A person begins a

phase as an apprentice, develops mastery, and then begins the next phase as an apprentice, and so

forth. The apprentice versus master delineation is intended to give a sense of where the journey

begins and ends for each phase in the cycle. There is no shame in being a novice. Contrarily, it is an

exciting time to be learning and, yes, it can be scary. Actually, a healthy dose of fear, doubt, and selfreflection is required for the journey to mastery. It is necessary to give up old ways of doing things

that are familiar in order to step into new ways of being. The experience can be likened to the

transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly. A caterpillar crawls while the butterfly flies—they

are the same being, yet their mode of operation is fundamentally changed. Anyone who chooses to

learn something is daring to be great! Bravely putting themselves out in the world, choosing to

claim what they know, admitting what they don’t know, and then trying something new . . . these

are the characteristics of the leading voices for methods in this book.

While it is often said that these methods take a lifetime to master, there is an arriving that

people express when working with a method. This arriving is often described with a sense of

wonder, excitement, and confidence. It also signifies that the person is moving to the next phase

of mastery, a new journey is beginning.



Illustration by Christine Valenza



Figure 1. The Cycle of Mastery



29



30



navigating through the methods



Method Mastery

Method Masters focus on one particular approach to whole system change. The practitioner takes a “deep dive” into the history, theory, research, values, language, tools, techniques,

and applications of the method. These masters require little documentation when in the midst of

the change process; they have embodied the method . . . they know it by heart, and they can sense

when the method requires adjustment in order to adapt it to a particular situation. The apprentice, on the other hand, is more inclined to strictly follow the method guidelines with little deviation from what is written in the documentation or taught in courses and workshops.

Blend Mastery

Blend Masters build on method mastery. They have mastered multiple methods and continue to add more to their repertoire. While they may not articulate it in the moment, blend masters intuitively know what to use when, where, and why. There is an effortless mixing and

matching, recognizing which aspects of the methods are best integrated for a particular situation.

On the other hand, the apprentice may not see the distinctions and the blending may appear

more disjointed or choppy. Here, the apprentice might be at a loss as to which method or methods to use, and might make a less-than-optimal match.

Invention Mastery

Invention Masters focus on the natural evolution of method mastery and blend mastery.

Alban and Scherer stated, “We are standing on the shoulders of giants. It is now up to us, their

descendents, to do what they did so many years ago; discover new principles and methods of

assisting leaders and their organizations to be as effective as they can be.”4 In the process of perfecting their knowledge of methods and increasing their ability to blend them, invention masters

push outside conventional boundaries to innovate. When faced with a situation that cannot be

addressed with a method or set of methods, these masters draw upon their expertise to create

new connections and patterns that lead to advances and inspired approaches. On the other hand,

the apprentice draws from the pool of what is available and blends methods effortlessly, yet does

not see nor seize the opportunity to craft a new way.



Selecting Methods

Mastery begins with selection. If you choose to master a particular method, combine methods, or

develop a new one, you must begin with selection; and there is so much that goes into this decision. Consider, for example, the Catholic Schools Initiative in the Toledo Diocese of northwest

Ohio. This example will be used throughout this section of the chapter to bring to life the process

for method selection.

There were 95 schools located throughout northwest Ohio. The schools operated somewhat

autonomously and often found they were competing for the same students. Enrollments were declin-



selecting methods

ing and some schools had to close. A question often raised was, “How can we sustain ourselves, collaborate, and serve our calling?” In one planning meeting, they described how their purpose was to go

from being a network of individual schools to a truly interdependent school system. As they looked

ahead, they determined that they had to craft a unified vision of their future, find a better structure,

and improve the way they collaborated.5

Which method or methods would you recommend using? What about all the factors at

play here and all the additional questions you would like to ask? How can the Summary Matrix

(see chapter 1) and all the information in this book help you consider options and design a

change road map? Making sense of all these methods and then choosing is not a straightforward

process. While designing a change initiative, Ron Lippitt, one of the founders and thought leaders

for the field of organization development, intuitively asked three simple questions (see figure 2).

Years and many methods later, these questions are still relevant. The three questions can be

thought of as a sequence of steps to consider when selecting a method.



Illustration by Christine Valenza



Figure 2. Lippitt’s Three Questions for Planning a Change



What Is the Purpose?

The primary organizing theme for this book is purpose. Purpose is about meaning. In the

context of change, it captures the essence of how the people in the system aspire to be different

because they have come together, in person or virtually, in order to collectively create their

future. Getting to purpose is hard work. Bold questions about what is desired become a powerful source for clarifying the intentions and aspirations for change. Uncovering purpose can lead

to lengthy debates, crumpled-up paper, and starting over. Ironically, conflicts, problems, and



31



32



navigating through the methods

issues are something to be welcomed rather than resisted or feared because they provide clues to

what is best and needs to emerge. Inviting people to shape the specifics ensures the investment is

worthwhile.

Purpose is the collective answer to the question, “What do we want to accomplish on this

change journey, what aspirations do we hold?” The answer differs from one change to the next.

One way to develop purpose is to clarify a set of outcomes using an appreciative approach in

which participants in the planning of the change share stories of an amazing or successful experience with a change. Another approach is to ask people to speak one by one of their most deeply

held aspirations for the change. As they share and listen to each other, common themes emerge

that coalesce into the desired outcomes for the impending change. In developing the outcomes,

consider the following general guidance:

• Keep the end in mind. Too often, facilitators and participants jump right into action . . . determining the tasks to be accomplished, timing, locations, and even specific agenda items. Then,

someone involved in the process asks, “Why do we want to do that?” When this question is

raised, the process can unfurl—a pregnant pause, looks to the ceiling, and even frustrated

glances suggesting that to ask such a question is heresy. It is natural to start with action and

often comes from the desire to be tangible and concrete. Clarifying the “why” provides an

opportunity for taking the conversation deeper in a way that brings out the meaningfulness

of the change. A powerful question to ask of any activity is, “In order to what?” The answer

will uncover the real desires—the compelling inspirations and aspirations.

• Focus on the intentions for the change. It’s seductive for change agents to predetermine the

conclusions (goals, decisions, action plans, etc.) that they believe are the “right” answers.

The distinction between focusing on intentions and focusing on goals is elusive and important. It is the difference between engaging and manipulating. Change intentions articulate

the aspirations of the change without dictating how they will be achieved. Organizational

goals are specific aims of the organization that can be created through the process or set

through more traditional means. It is a leap of faith to let go of “I have the answer” and

trust the wisdom in the room. Those who take that leap are frequently surprised that the

creativity, commitment, and effectiveness far exceeds what they thought possible.

• Be bold. The pragmatic reason for boldness is simple: Given the investment of time and effort,

the bolder the initiative, the greater the potential return. There is a subtler and perhaps more

important reason to be ambitious. Interrupting current patterns with a call to something big

inspires involvement and sustains commitment, particularly when the work gets tough. With

a bold, clear intention in hand, you don’t need to have answers to get started. In fact, you are

better served by letting go of the need for immediate answers and focusing on inviting the

people of the system in to find what best serves the organization or community.

Now that you have compelling outcomes, ask the second follow-up question, “If all of these

outcomes are accomplished, in one sentence, what will be different in your/our world?” The



selecting methods

answer to this question gets at the heart of the purpose for change. It is the culmination of the

outcomes.

If done well, you will have a purpose statement that calls people to the work. People

throughout the system see themselves in it and they feel compelled to participate: some with

enthusiasm and hope, others with fear and skepticism. Regardless, a right purpose creates a visceral reaction and attraction within the various stakeholders and members of the whole system.

With a clear purpose and agreed-upon outcomes, you are now more ready to consider the

various methods available. Compare the purpose and outcomes statement to the five dimensions

of purpose presented in the Summary Matrix (see chapter 1). For instance, some purpose statements will be more directed toward planning, others toward structuring or improving, and some

aim to accomplish all three. Narrow your choices to those methods that seem most similar to

your purpose.

Continuing with the Catholic Schools Initiative:

As the leadership, design team, and support staff wrestled with the notion of purpose and outcomes described above, a teachable moment arose one day in planning a specific event. This moment

led to a shift in how they approached collaborative design and how they understood the importance of

purpose.

A large meeting had been scheduled for principals. The staff described how a study was conducted to target problem areas and key decisions that needed to be made. The data was analyzed, and

was to be provided as a report in a two-hour workshop. The intended process was as follows: Welcome, Agenda, Report Results, Identify Problem Areas, and Action Planning. The conversation then

moved to an “in order to” discussion. The study was done in order to . . . the report will be presented

in order to . . . and so forth. The intentions and real aims of the workshop emerged. The conversation

became lively; there was laughter and debate. Meaning emerged; people sensed a deeper connection

among everyone in the room. As the conversation continued to focus on outcomes, further discussion

on the overall purpose emerged. Needless to say, the actual agenda and much of the original workshop

changed—not because the activities were “bad,” rather because the purpose and outcomes provided

important criteria for choosing how to proceed. “Designing our future together” emerged as a purpose

critical to answering the next question.

Who Needs to Be Involved?

Involvement is about people. The question of “who” helps to define the natural boundaries

of the system undergoing change. As boundaries are explored, purpose is further clarified. It is an

iterative process in which the emerging web of connections informs where to draw the lines (e.g.,

functions, intentions, aspirations, interests, geography, etc.) for the type of system and event size.

Two aspects—type of system and event size—are useful “people” dimensions for further clarifying the choice of method or methods to use (see the Summary Matrix in chapter 1).

Some methods are more suited for community engagement, while others are more suited



33



34



navigating through the methods

for organizational settings. An interesting pattern for many of the methods is to see how they are

morphing and adapting to other settings. In addition to the type of system, it is important to consider the sheer number of people expected to participate in the process and the events that occur

throughout. Some methods are more suited to very large numbers of people, whereas others are

more suited to involving smaller numbers over time. In determining who needs to be involved,

consider the following general guidance:

• Make a clear choice to engage. The primary aim for involving people is NOT to reduce resistance and create buy-in. These are by-products of a more compelling reason to engage

people—wisdom. The people in the system, when engaged, will ensure that the best decisions about the future are made. As a result, people see themselves in the answers that

emerge and begin integrating them immediately. That is why breakthroughs from these

methods can far outstrip anything that comes from the top down. That said, for many in

leadership positions, it is a leap of faith to invite people into conversations regarding substantive decisions. While it’s true that transforming a large system requires commitment

from people with position power, change can begin anywhere. In fact, if you trace the inspiration for change in many large efforts, you’ll find a modest beginning from a person or

persons located in a variety of places in the system.

• Get the right people involved. Who is affected by the change? Who can influence it? Who

brings needed resources? There are two aspects of people to consider: stakeholders and

diversity. Stakeholders are those constituents who play a particular role in the system.

Diversity refers to the biographical characteristics such as gender, age, and ethnicity. Bringing together broad representation sets the stage for breakthrough. The more creatively the

system is defined, the more the potential for wisdom to emerge. Perhaps the most surprising participants are the “wild cards”—the people who seem to have the least connection to

the system—because they contribute perspectives and ideas that aren’t normally part of the

conversation.

• Bring the spirit of invitation. People know when they are wanted, when the invitation is sincere. What’s important is that the invitation conveys something other than “business as

usual” is happening, and there is a choice in participating. The first communication sets the

tone for what follows. It is an important opportunity to generate excitement and curiosity,

to attract people into a productive adventure. It starts to break habitual patterns, naming

publicly the bold intentions and aspirations that you desire people to bring. A great invitation affirms each person’s wisdom . . . that they have something important to offer. While

there are occasions in which the initial request may involve required attendance, over the

life of a change project, contribution increases both in quality and quantity as people experience it as their choice.

Continuing with the Catholic Schools Initiative:



selecting methods

With their purpose and outcomes, a Design Team, a microcosm of the whole, came back

together. They were a representative sample of people from across the 95 schools. With the superintendent’s staff, they further clarified the purpose and outcomes, and then they discussed who needed

to be involved. It became apparent that they were both an organization and a community! First,

teachers, priests, and administrators were identified. The more they talked about their purpose, the

more their list grew: staff members, students, parents . . . and it continued to grow. What about

including superintendents from public schools, local colleges, alumni, city leaders, special-needs parents and advocates, and more? One person on the superintendent’s staff would often put his head in

his hands with a half smile and say, “It’s getting bigger . . . and bigger . . .” You could see the mixture

of excitement, wonder, fear, and skepticism. He wanted to know how all these people could work

together, make a decision, and actually move forward.

What Conversations Need to Take Place?

With purpose clear and people identified, focus shifts to the nature of the process—how

to have productive and meaningful conversations that move the organization or community

toward the future it yearns to have. A consistent message from masters of the work is that

change is more than an event; it is a journey that unfolds as people come together to create

shared meaning and agreements for action. They converge together through events like summits, town halls, meetings, and workshops. They continue the journey by dispersing back into

the system to follow through on the work, then coming together again as needed. This is often

referred to as “converge-diverge.” It is a critical aspect to engagement processes. The benefit of

convergence is acceleration. When a critical mass of the people who make up the whole system

focus attention together in “real time,” becoming aware of their connections, clarifying their

aspirations, and agreeing on pathways, there is a fundamental paradigm shift—and collective

action ensues.

Process-oriented dimensions that are helpful to consider when selecting a method are the

event size, timing (preparation, events, and follow-up), cycle of use, and special resource needs

(see Summary Matrix in chapter 1). These dimensions can be framed as basic design questions.

In charting a change journey, consider the following general guidance:

• Take the time needed. Generally, most clients will ask for this work to be done in fewer days,

fewer hours, and small chunks of time for people to meet. In these situations, a simple

reminder helps: “Sometimes you have to go slow to go fast.” Humans require a certain processing time when addressing ambitious issues. In fact, research confirms this notion. The

“Zeigarnik Effect” states that people remember uncompleted tasks better than completed

ones. Multiple-day processes rely on this insight, often ending the afternoon with an openended task. When participants arrive the next morning, they come with energy and insights

that deepen and broaden the work. Don’t risk the opportunity for breakthrough by scrimping on the time.



35



36



navigating through the methods

• Pay attention to the flow. What is the talk in the environment? Is there room for taking on a

challenge in the minds and hearts of the people affected? If a disaster just took place, the

first work may require triage. Look for the opening to engagement and then link the change

journey to the current situation such that people see how the investment can make a difference or prevent a similar catastrophe in the future. For many complex issues, incredible

work has already been done and lots of creative answers identified, yet nothing quite turns

into action. In these cases, because the ideas are ripe for harvesting, whole system change

methods are often just the ticket to get the work moving.

• Keep it simple. Whether it is in the choice of method, the selection of participants, or the

specifics of process design, if you are working so hard that nothing gels, it is usually a good

indicator that something simpler is needed. It is time to return to the intentions for the

project, the task, the issue at hand in order to find a more elegant answer. One way to do

this is to start with a blank sheet of paper. Kathie Dannemiller would often sit with a design

team that was wrestling with the change plan details. After hours of listening, debating, and

working toward consensus, she would take the pages and rip them from the flip chart. She

would look at the group and say, “Let’s start over with a blank sheet . . . if it was important,

it will make it back up here again.” It was amazing that this worked so well; often a richer,

better perspective emerged leading to the right design.

Back to the Catholic Schools Initiative:

Although hopeful, the question remained, “How can all these people work together, make decisions, and move forward?” It was nearing the end of June 2005. The leadership team in conjunction

with a design team determined that they wanted to look five years out with a focus on the immediate

18 months ahead to December 2006. This date was chosen to align with a critical meeting of the

Bishop’s Education Council. The council finalizes decisions based on recommendations from task

forces and committees. The superintendent, along with his staff, decided to bring forth recommendations for the future in a different way than before, a way that incorporated the wisdom of an everwidening circle of people. In his words, “As we go out into our schools and parishes, we need to include

more and more people in the conversation.”

As a first phase of the journey, a Catholic Schools Summit was planned and held in November

2005. More than 400 people from 95 schools took two days together and crafted, for the first time, a

mission, vision, goals, principles, and action plans for their whole school system. One key decision from

the summit was to work within a new configuration—regions. Each region was to address the question, “How can we work together and ensure the future of Catholic schools in our region?” They developed imperatives for their region, imperatives that required significant collaboration. This was historic.

When hearing of this new approach, some people were convinced that either the decisions had already

been made or that it was far easier and quicker for someone to “just make a decision . . . tell us what to

do.” However, the intention was to empower community members to craft a new future. The superintendent was committed to making the circle wider by increasing the number of people included.



selecting methods

Throughout the planning of the summit and regional meetings, processes were considered that lent

themselves to the planning cycle and involving people within driving distance. In addition, it was necessary to ensure that the methods would work with minimal resources (e.g., a room, microphones, flip

charts, handouts, etc.).

As you consider these questions that they faced in the diocese, consider what role multiple

intelligences might play in the selection. Multiple intelligences have contributed significantly in

transforming the field of education; similarly, we believe that the multiple intelligences framework can help to broaden and deepen our practice. Several people on the superintendent’s staff

worked with the multiple intelligences and used their knowledge to shape the various activities

that were chosen. What we discovered was that emphasizing multiple intelligences can help us

diversify our own approaches while tapping into the hidden potential of those participating in

the process.

Concluding the Catholic Schools example:

As specific collaborative activities were considered, the emphasis on interpersonal intelligence

and logical intelligence were seen as key to bridging divides among schools and finding new ways to

relate and work together. Further, people in the school community rarely used data, facts, and analytical tools for understanding the trends and business issues facing them, individually and collectively.

It was often mentioned that people were not aware of their school’s viability, particularly when the

parish subsidized budget deficits. The relationship between financial issues and key demographics

(enrollments, profile of students, changes in public schools, etc.) needed to be understood and

addressed. The reality of the regions emerged. Activities were chosen that tapped into multiple intelligences: visuals, music, data, questions, listening, drawing, and more.

At the various regional meetings, something special began to emerge . . . HOPE. The shift was

beginning. People began to see the big picture of their system; they heard each other, and started

coming to their own conclusions. Stories were being told of how people were spontaneously organizing local meetings, using techniques modeled in the process. One participant stated, “I didn’t think

it was possible. It seemed that we were going sooooo slow at first, getting all these people involved.

Well, it was worth being patient, we are now making real progress.” There was a different energy, a

confidence that they could accomplish a new future together as a whole school system. And, the journey continues.



A Creative Approach to Selecting

As we uncovered the many approaches to change, we heard from a researcher, Raban Daniel

Fuhrmann, who developed a useful process design tool—the Meta-Matching-Method (MMM)—

to select and adapt a method to a change initiative.6 In a six- to eighteen-hour deliberative process,

the facilitator and client map, profile, match, and redesign. Here are the phases in brief:



37



38



navigating through the methods

Mapping: Participants draw “mind maps” of the project to uncover the power and interests of the

actors. These “quick and dirty” pictures establish an initial collective awareness and solidarity among the team and lead to a common understanding of the case.

Profiling: Participants go further into the details exploring the requirements of the venture in six

categories: (1) complexity of topic, (2) complexity of the actors, (3) method’s openness, (4)

time pressure, (5) resource availability, and (6) degree of commitment needed.

Matching: The profile is compared with the profiles of possible methods. Together, participants

decide on the best choice for their situation.

Redesigning: Finally, the chosen approach is then adjusted to the details of the case.

As a meta-tool, MMM helps facilitators and consultants choose and adapt a good fit for

their case. It works by profiling the requirements of the initiative and matching it with a performance profile of appropriate tools. In the process, not only is a method selected, but also the

stakeholders gain a deeper understanding of their shared assumptions and an increased commitment to the coming venture.7



Selecting a Practitioner

Mastery and selection have been the focus thus far. Now, what about selecting a practitioner to

support an organization or community in a particular change? How do you ensure there is a

good fit? What criteria should be considered? What questions need to be asked?

Selection is a two-way street. Both the practitioner and key decision makers in the system do the selecting. Experienced clients are hard to come by . . . and so are masterful practitioners. It is an important partnership that is more than selling some “thing” or convincing

someone to buy services or trying to find the most inexpensive option. Because these initiatives impact whole systems, the potential loss for an inappropriate fit can be wide-ranging—

from money and time to reputation and lawsuits. On the flip side, when there is a good fit, the

initiative has the best chance for success and further, real transformation can take place. As

with any great partnership, there are some basic “yes” or “no” questions to ask. Regardless of

who might benefit directly from the answer, it is imperative that both parties address the

questions. Is there . . .

A Values Fit?

Whether spoken or unspoken, our values guide our behavior. They are visible in the

choices we make and actions we take. There are two levels on which to determine if there is a

values fit. First, there is the fit with regard to how the change is planned and implemented. Do

leadership and other key people in the client system support engagement-based processes? Do

they believe in bringing together microcosms of the whole: harnessing the power of the existing

diversity and ensuring that all voices are included? How do answers to these questions compare

to the practitioner’s beliefs about how to best guide change? Second, there is the character fit.



selecting methods

The character of the community or organization can be seen in how it makes choices and takes

action. Does it operate in a way that is ethical and consistent with the practitioner’s beliefs? Does

the organization or community consider the impact of its actions on the world at large? Are its

choices and actions consistent with what the practitioner can support? The answers to these

questions can be found through asking and, most importantly, through observing. Actions

speak louder than words; spend time paying attention, listening, and noticing.

A Competency Fit?

In scoping the change initiative, there are so many variables to track. How does the scope of

the work to be done match the competencies of the practitioner? Do the competencies fit this

particular community or organization? Is the practitioner confident, and subsequently, is the

client confident in the practitioner? To answer these questions, consider the depth, breadth, and

nature of the practitioner’s experience, the number and type of projects (e.g., size, industry, and

length), references, and education (degrees, certifications, workshops, and trainings).

A Style Fit?

There are certain styles of working. Some people and systems are task focused, linear, structured, and time bound . . . while others may be relationship focused, freer, looser, and less time

bound—or the style might be a bit of both. Be clear about the style and what combination works

best for the partnership. Maybe the system is best served by having a practitioner with a different

style. For example, if the system is less structured, it may be better to have someone who is more

task focused. In other cases, it may be desirable to have a more “like-minded” fit.

A Cost Fit?

Cost is often a sensitive issue. Fees that consultants charge for change work not only range

widely from practitioner to practitioner, but also between venues. It is important to be clear

about fees and other costs early in the process. Know what is negotiable and what is not. Many

practitioners with vibrant consulting practices donate time or work for low fees in service to

communities and nonprofits. There are so many ways to address this issue! Counsel from seasoned practitioners—never let money be the reason not to proceed. Either negotiate a fee structure that works, or find a practitioner that will work with the community or organization. For

example, payment can come in many forms—barter, the satisfaction of making a contribution,

developing a new technique, and enhancing one’s own experience and skills. Bottom line, there

are creative ways meet the needs of the practitioner and client system.

A Timing Fit?

This practical question matters because change takes time. And, more and more, wholesystem change initiatives are spanning over years versus one-time events. The practitioner may be

the best in the business, but if the initiative is one of a long list they are undertaking, it may not



39