Agreement and Certainty
Map Challenges and Match Them to Your Solutions (~50 min.)
“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first fifty-five minutes determining the proper question to ask.”
Purposes
In Agreement and Certainty, participants sort problems into four categories—simple, complicated, complex, or chaotic—and look for mismatches between problems and solutions. This helps us align solutions with the complexity of the problems we face and prevents wasting resources on the wrong kind of solution. Artfully layering challenges and mismatches will sharpen next steps and new strategies. This structure brings to life LS Principle #10, Never Start Without Clear Purpose(s).
Principle: Never Start Without Clear Purposes.
Five Structural Elements—Min Specs
Structuring Invitation
“Let’s get strategic about matching our approaches to our challenges! We’ll use a simple framework to categorize our challenges and identify any mismatches between them and our current approaches to addressing them. This will help us select more effective solutions and make progress.”
Space and Materials
Groups of four to six chairs at small tables [breakouts of four to six]. Display the two visuals for the Four Types of Challenges (below). Copies of the matrix visual for each F2F participant. Sticky notes and markers.
Four types of challenges and associated dynamics. Source: Adapted from Professors Ralph Stacey and Brenda Zimmerman.
The four types of challenges arrayed with degrees of Agreement and Certainty/Predictability in mind.
Participation Distribution
Roles include host [tech host], and participants. There is no minimum group size. Everyone involved in the team or unit under discussion (not only leaders) is invited and has an equal opportunity to contribute.
Group Configuration
Alone, small groups, whole group
Steps and Time Allocation
Intro: Share the structuring invitation. Explain the four types of challenges and display the descriptions of each. (3 min.)
List Challenges: Participants individually list challenges they are facing. (2 min.)
Form Groups and Compare Lists: Participants form groups of four to six [breakouts] to compare their lists and create a shared list of common challenges. (3 min.)
Introduce Agreement-and-Certainty Matrix: Hand out copies of the Agreement Certainty Matrix Template [display]. Provide examples from your context for each category—something simple (like following a recipe), complicated (like sending rockets to the moon), complex (like raising children), and chaotic (like pinning the tail on the donkey). (3 min.)
Categorize the First Challenge: Each small group chooses a challenge and places it on the matrix based on their answers to these questions. What is our degree of agreement regarding the complexity of the challenge? What is our degree of certainty about the challenge or predictability about the results it will generate? (5 min.)
Categorize Remaining Challenges: Groups place the rest of their challenges on the matrix following the same process. (5 min.)
Dig Deeper: Each group picks one important challenge from their list and lists their current approaches to address it. (3 min.)
Explore Fit: Each group explores the fit between the challenge type and their current approach, flagging mismatches using the examples and the guidelines in Agreement Certainty Matrix Template. (15 min.)
All-Together Sharing: Everyone returns to plenary. Each group posts their challenges and mismatches on a large copy of the matrix; then everyone reflects on the patterns they see. (10 min.)
Blank in-person Agreement Certainty Matrix template and the same template filled in with projects.
Photo credit: Keith McCandless
Taking It Online
This works online with no major adjustments.
Practice Insights
Tips
Encourage everyone to avoid making judgments about where people place their activities. If participants spend too much time defining the challenge rather than focusing on how to address it, redirect them to focus on how to address the challenge.
Riffs and Variations
Have participants hold up signs for Chaotic, Complex, Complicated, or Simple to indicate their level of agreement visually. Create a table to capture mismatches and action steps for addressing them. Immediately following this structure, use the LS Selection Matchmaker to identify ways to address complex challenges.
Practical Applications
Help managers understand chronic challenges. Help a planning group move from analysis paralysis to action. Organize a department’s project portfolio.
Optional String
Address mismatches with Discovery & Action Dialogue, Panarchy, or Strategy Knotworking to generate more local prototypes.
Attribution
Liberating Structure developed by Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless. Dig deeper by exploring the work of professor Brenda Zimmerman and the Plexus Institute: http://www.plexusinstitute.com/edgeware/archive/
Collateral Materials
Link to supporting materials for Agreement Certainty.
Template for matching approaches to challenges.
Microstructural elements of Agreement Certainty in the constellation format.