 |
Overview:
In January 2000 more than 100 employees of the Coconino National Forest participated in a daylong meeting to make recommendations for improving their work environment. The Forest Supervisor began the day by acknowledging that the Forest Service was undergoing changes "that are constant, and sometimes dramatic, [that] create stress for each and every one of us. And pretty soon it's the little things (and some not so little) that are getting in our way, making our jobs more difficult." The goal was to create an enjoyable and rewarding place to work by selecting five "doable" things that the Forest could work to change.
How the "Store" got involved:
One of Carl's colleagues, Liz Taylor, was asked to help the forest's planning team learn from their employees what should be done to improve the work environment. They wanted to use face-to-face group processes, in addition to the standard questionnaire and report mandated by the US Forest Service CIP process. She put together a team, including Carl, to facilitate the process.
Process(es) Used:
After brief opening remarks, the employees were divided into five smaller groups. The goal for each of these groups was to answer the question, "What could be done to enhance the working environment of the Coconino National Forest?" The participants in each group brainstormed answers to two questions, "What is working that should be continued?" And, "What should we be doing more of?" The facilitators then guided them in the use of Nominal Group Technique (NGT) to answer the combined questions: "What needs to be changed? What are your dreams? If there were no constraints on change, what would you like to see happen?"
In a meeting of the full group, the top five items from each of the small groups were reported. Everyone then voted on their preferences from the resulting list of items. Carl facilitated the use of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) to engage the group in a substantial discussion about the relative priority of the five items that had received the most votes. Comparing the items helped to clarify the meaning of the items, to surface the values that the attendees held about them, and to select items that were "doable"
Teams including employees from all ranks within the organization formed to work on action plans and identify concrete initial steps for each of the five high priority items. The meeting concluded by each group presenting the highlights of their planning and by the Forest Supervisor commenting on why the day had been valuable and endorsing the proposed first action steps.
Products:
The Forest was pleased with the process and used it again for the 2001 CIP. At this meeting, it was reported that the five action teams formed during CIP 2000 became three teams the following year. One team tackled administrative problems, one, age diversity, career ladders, and merit promotion, and the final team, balancing forest-wide priorities and workloads. Tangible progress has been made by all the teams.
Case Study: Chattanooga, TN
Case Study: Casper, WY
Return to Toolkit
|
 |
 |
