Circularity in Systemic Team Coaching
A Practical Concept to Redirect Systemic Interfaces to modify teams profiles and Organizational culturess

In the same way as traditional Chinese medicine has approached the human body, there is today an opportunity to develop a new paradigm for understanding organizationa cultures, based on energy flows and exchanges rather than on physical structures and operational flow charts. 

How can we model the patterns of privileged systemic energy flow in organizational systems?  How can we pinpoint or predict future gaps in pertinent operational interfaces and exchanges within our corporate environments?  How can we describe and draw the hidden architectures that define and limit information flow and interfaces in our organizations?  How can we learn to perceive forms of organizational DNA which could help us predict behaviors and processes throughout a specific company, from top to bottom, and what has that to do with organizational cultures?

To begin answering some of these questions, this article develops what could be considered a practical energy concept for the analysis, diagnosis and development of organizations or to modify organizational cultures.  This concept describes a variety of hidden or cultural organizational architectures which influence energy flows, ranging from different types limiting polarities to optimized circularity.  In this context, the words "polarity" and “circularity” are applied to energy flow.  Circularity is not kin to circular, but is to be taken in the sense of "circulation" as in circulating from place to place.  Using this simple and practical concept, this article aims to demonstrate that energy circularity in hidden organizational architectures can offer a new systemic perspective in a very practical organizational coaching approach to modify system culture. 

Creating circularity with a number of systemic tools can help a manager, coach or consultant work more precisely with what happens between people and places rather than within people and places.  In this sense, circularity is an interface concept that helps us focus on system internal and external energy exchange.  This concept is more than useful when we wish to move away from a classical model  of our organizations relational architectures towards understanding open, ever-changing, flowing, network and virtual systems. Consequently, circularity awareness is extremely useful to develop our understanding of project teams and other fuzzy or apparently chaotic organizational cultures and systems.

Energy-centered circularity as a concept can be approached in an intellectual way or as a very specific diagnosis and intervention tool.  Practically speaking, all the members of a given organization can participate in a thousand and one creative ways to create circularity.  This can be done in a wide variety of organizations with very different types of culture.  Provoking useful circularity in organizational meetings is one area where this creativity has often taken place.  Below, for example, are some of the easier techniques for developing circularity that been implemented in the realm of corporate meetings.

• Rather than always having a given team’s meeting in the same location, have each monthly meeting take place in a different room, building, department, alternately on and off property. 

To create in-team circularity, suppose that each executive team member hosts each consecutive meeting within his or her department, property, division, country, etc.  The obvious rapid results are an accrued sense of organizational awareness, of co-responsibility in the team and a much higher visibility of the team by the rest of the organization.  Symbolically, bringing leadership and headquarters down into the organization and circulating within the system can have a very powerful effect modifying the culture, opening communication channels, developing both a sense of team and team member availability to the rest of the organizational system. 

To enhance interfaces with each hosting system in turn, some organizations have arranged that the visiting executive team focus on the hosting part of the organization in a number of special and prepared ways.  A property visit, yearly check-up and or evaluation of the local system's performance, a meeting with lower echelons or of important local clients in an open-door type of event, the launching of the year's challenge or of a new project, can be examples of that type of action. 

Question: How can the executive team's active and focused presence best influence each local system for developing corporate awareness and a better results-oriented organizational culture,

• Within each monthly executive meeting, have the team members exchange a number of set meeting-process related roles on a rotational basis. 

The main meeting roles can be the moderator, the time keeper, the scribe, and as we have suggested above, the meeting host.  In each meeting, each of these roles is to be held by a different executive to create in-team circularity.  Of course, this meeting role circularity does not include the decision maker, already busy with permanent responsibilities.

Creating meeting role circularity modifies interfaces between the team members every month.  Relational habits are modified before they form, new interfaces are created, and every team member is permanently kept on his or her toes.

Question: How can formally and systematically rotating meeting roles have a positive effect on the executive meeting’s effectiveness? 

Coaches have helped implement this rotating process in a large number of their client teams. In time they have witnessed that the teams developed creativity in problem solving, co-responsibility, team empowerment, and a larger sense of organizational awareness.   Furthermore, rotating meeting process roles creates a positve learning environment for all the team members.  In time, the main effect has often been to refocus energy away from being centered on the boss and more on lateral exchange between executive team members.  Operating this simple circularity process within an executive team can have a major effect on the executive team, and in time on the whole organizational culture. 

• Within executive meetings, regularly surprise the team by modifying the physical meeting room layout. 

Most rigid, structured or traditional organizations have their executive meetings in the same board room with the same people in the same roles, and with a very rigidly set room organization. The meeting process is generally as predictable, and boring.  This reveals a conservative and ritualized underlying organizational architecture and its corresponding culture.  Once these teams have arranged for everything  to be totally predictable, everyone in the system very earnestly wonders why it is so difficult to implement minor organizational change.

Question: How can regularly modifying executive meeting room layout facilitate creativity, emerging processes, co-responsibility and team empowerment?

To practice meeting room circularity,

• The layout can each time be modified from a circle to a u-shape to a square to all team members facing one same direction, to sub-group work and smaller round tables, to a full circle again. 
• Avoid "squats": people claiming territory by dumping their belongings on a chair with an obvious " I'm here to stay" strategy.
• During breaks have someone liberate all the seats and clear the personal belongings onto surrounding tables judiciously placed along the room's walls.
• Use a larger room than necessary to permit emerging mobility.
• Avoid having the same people always sit side by side, thus creating visible clans or coalitions. 
• From meeting to meeting, make sure the team leader’s position circulates in the room layout. 

Implementing such simple circularity tactics in meetings can do wonders to gradually and effortlessly modify organizational relational architecture, energy flow, and ultimately transform team and organizational culture.  Team meeting circularity will open any willing team to adaptability, emerging strategies and creativity. It will help open each team member to other people, other realms of responsibility, other projects, departments and divisions.

In a indirect and general way, one of the main objectives of developing circularity in a team is to operate a shift, taking individual and collective attention and strategies away from territoriality towards greater interface creativity and energy-flow consciousness. We are deeply convinced that a simple modification of implicit meeting architecture is one easy technique that most organizations can implement to start changing energy flows and interfaces in their organization to ultimately modify the whole system's culture.

Any consequent amont of energy dispayed in a given direction will automatically create corresponding energy in the opposite direction.  This simple law of mechanical physics precisely describes the reason for electrical resistance, on the one hand, and other well known energy phenomena that occur in nature as well as in human communication.  This  law clearly explains the causes for different forms of polarity, presented below.

To illustrate a simple sequence in a meeting, should any team member hold a strong position in almost any domain, one will automatically observe the appearance of active or passive resistance to that position, so as to create a system equilibrium within the team. 

Our conclusion is that polarities in team and organization interfacing are not the most effective and productive types of interaction.  With simple coaching techniques, much more flowing and creative types of interfacing  such as circularity can very easely and usefully replace polarities in teams and organizations in order to gradually modify their type of culture.

Circularity as a form of hidden or implicit organization architecture fits in to a larger energy-focused concept which can be used as a very fine tool for team and organizational diagnosis and development.  Managers, coaches and consultants can use it to better comprehend and simply modify communication flow between individuals, within intact teams, and unltimately between teams.  One needs to keep in mind that modifying the architecture of communication flows and interfaces ultimately modifies the more tangible aspects of organizational cultures, and has a huge infulence on their results.

Our experience using polarity and circularity concepts in the ways presented below has occurred both during team coaching and team meeting supervision within executive teams and on all other organizational levels.  The tool is so simple that it can be rapidly integrated and used by any aware coach, individual or team.

Very synthetically, observing circularity in team meetings consists in carefully observing who speaks after whom and for how long.  The next step will be to gradually and consciously modify these interfacing processes through coaching and other communication tactics, to increase the creative flow of interpersonal exchange towards more circularity  

More precisely, a large part of the communication flow in formal systems usually operates by following patterns described as one of several levels of "polarity".  These interfacing processes illustrate, reveal or confirm underlying team structure and organizational culture.

There are notable differences between three different types of polarized team relational architectures, or levels of team polarity. We have also observed that these different levels of polarity can all lead to circularity when a specific team develops its maturity.

Note: We have chosen to display this concept in the above way to make obvious links with other organizational concepts such as management styles, team profiles and organizational cultures presented in other theories and models (Blake and Mouton, Hersey and Blanchard, PCM. etc).

First type of polarity occurs when organization or team members excessively focus on leader. In turn, those play a very central role.  This type of cultural architecture is revealed when leaders initiates lengthy one-way formal speeches such as during public addresses and conventions, while all listen, relatively passively, delegating responsibility upwards.  The preferred room layout for this type of relational architecture is in all facing forward as in a theater, typically, with a podium for the speaker.  In this  setting typical of some organizational cultures, the orator or orators deliver their speech at the whole undifferentiated assistance as if it were one unique person or entity. 

The team, as a group, is treated as one ensemble. Much as when one speaks to a "public" or a "floor", individuals in the crowd are not expected to individually exist during such meetings.  Kin to when at Sunday mass, the group is treated as an undifferentiated mass.  Importance is given to the subjects or themes primarily treated by the leader.  Importance is not given to team members as individuals.  In these settings and in the organizational cultures that they reflect, normal members are rarely given the opportunity to speak, if only to give their approval, sometimes to applaud.

This “public speaking” level of polarity is commonly experienced in traditional family-type, conservative, quality or product oriented and rather directive organizational cultures.  This meeting format reveals the hidden architecture for most organizational interfaces.  These are often micro-managed by the owner, founder or president who holds most of the vital information and makes most decisions. If coaching is ever considered in these organizations, it will concern coaching strategic legal and financial issues with the CEO and will occur in a strictly confidential setting. These organizations will more often call on public speakers who reinforce their underlying organizational culture by proceeding in an identical fashion with the employees, with one-way motivational speeches.

Meetings displaying a first-level polarity will often induce different forms of passivity amongst team members in the assistance.  The latter rarely respond publicly, but will choose to deal with their issues later, in one-on-one relationship with the boss behind closed doors or with others behind the boss's back.  Delegation in these organizational cultures flows up towards the boss. 

First level polarity interfacing and the corresponding hidden architecture often occurs in stable, traditional, provincial, conservative organizational cultures.  These organizations generally keep predictability at a high level as change is considered dangerous.  Obviously, its capacity to react to a changing environment and to implement creative team work is rather low.  Incidentally, becoming aware of the passivity induced by first level polarity reveals the fundamental discrepancy between public speaking and coaching.

Second-level polarity takes place in organizational cultures where the leader publicly discusses issues with each one of the team members in turn.  Occasionally, the same one-on one process can occur within the team with another person temporarily holding the leader's central position.  The resulting process can be illustrated as a star-shaped structure with one central expert or the leader positioned in the middle or acting as a hub.

In second-level polarities, we have often noticed that the discussion content and tone is usually argumentative between one central "expert" person and each one of the other team members in turn.   In effect, the central person (A) will propose a comment, when someone answers, A argues back with the same position, then another comments and A speaks again reconfirming the same idea, then another comments, and A speaks again, etc.  These systems spend less time conversing or in dialogue than they do convincing, arguing, and debating.  This meeting process in this type of organizational culture reveals that the key concern for the members of these system's is control.

The energetic result indeed keeps the formal or informal leader in a controlling and content-oriented central position.   The team's basic assumption is that to impose your decisions in a given field and win in the competition, one needs to display over-detailed expertise with  over-detailed convincing arguments. Obviously, these organizational cultures generally favor Powerpoint presentations in U-shaped room layouts presented by very well prepared and overbearingly competent experts.

Consequently, second-level polarity occurs during meetings within control-oriented, defensive or offensive competition-centered organizational cultures intently focused on developing their market shares with roll-out strategies implemented by their personnel in a quasi-military fashion.  Within this type of organizational architecture, most of the organization’s decisions and information takes place in one-on-one competitive relationships.  Predictably, teamwork is low in these systems. 

As a consequence of low teamwork, both executives and middle management will favor one-on-one coaching rather than team coaching which would have them question and remodel their hidden architecture.  In these systems, we have observed that an overwhelming amount of time and energy can be spent in territorial defensive or offensive one-on-one power games. 

When this type of polarity takes place around the leader in a central position, the effect is that each team member is only focused on working with the boss.  None of the team members really and effectively work together.  Consequently, the organizational culture and architecture is totally and vertically centralized, with non-cooperative territorial divisions, departments, services, and people.  The epytomy of this type of system is illustrated in so-called matrix organizations where in effect, all report directly to headquarters rather than be allowed to cooperate transversally within local teams.

Third level polarity usually takes place on two subtly different energy planes.  On the one hand, a conflict or argument is played out between two team members as if they were on stage, and on the other, the rest of the team is collectively put in a passive  position observing that unproductive relationship. 

On the first energy plane occurs a series of exchanges between two fighting members of the team. On the second energy plane, the rest of the assistance, often including the boss, will be invited to  be passive witnessnes to the conflict.

Third-level polarity is an offshoot of second level polarity as if the star system around one person has slipped into a competition between two people vying for the team's attention or approval.  The underlying question put to the team and its leader is: who is right, or who do you prefer?  The team, and more particularly the leader is to choose between the two. As the choice cannot be made, the two continue their stalemate-fight while the team and the boss get stuck in collective passivity.

While the conflict often concerns a professional issue, the real question put to the team, the organization and the boss is "who do you prefer".  The system gets stuck because the problem is more of an affective or relationship nature than strictly technical or professional.  Third level polarity often takes place in clan laden organizational cultures with two poweful old timer or barons having it out for collective attention, each entertaining hidden coalitions and behind-the-scenes manipulation strategies.

This repetitious process is therefore passivity inducing, pushing the team and the boss into an observer's or voyeur's position as the two leading actors have it out.  We have observed this process in teams and systems that display a high quantity of relational interactions with emotional-laden history. 

We could formulate the interpretation that the central relationship between the two polarized individuals is used to concentrate all the team's and leader's energy.  The objective may be to render the team inefficient to avoid facing professional challenges and change.  This type of organizational culture and relational architecture is more common in mature organizations which privilege participative approaches to reach consensus decisions in lengthy consulting processes.

Ideally, circularity takes place in a team or communciation system when the discussion or information flows freely and rapidly in all directions and between all of its members.

At any one point in time, it could seem that circularity is similar to first level polarity: one person is speaking and all are listening.  The difference is that the speaker does not deliver a long speech, but makes a very brief comment, getting right to the point.  Then another follows, and another, and another with an unpredictable or emerging and flowing pattern.

In circularity processes, it often seems that each emitted information bit is not aimed at one person in particular, but directed to the center or to all the team members simultaneously and equally.  The organizational culture and interactive architecture or interfacing structure resulting from this communication process could be qualified as a real "network-system" such as in some creative start-up companies.  It could be illustrated as follows: A-all, D-all, F-all, B-all, etc.

Luckily all this interruptive information exchange is not happening completely simultaneously.  Each short emission to all is followed by another and another. The result is rapid and multidirectional flowing energy that elicits unpredictable reactivity in an apparently very simple and spontaneous exchange process.  In different organzational cultures, this can of course be either completely chaotic or extremely constructive.

Comments that are offered in positive circularity-type dialogue often seem to follow a constructive or building pattern, such as "yes, I agree, and we could...".  These comments replace the more limiting "yes, but..." or  competitive "I have another idea..." illustrative of more contradictory or competitive interpersonal stances which would characterize negative circularity.

In circularity processes, complete participation from all members of the team in apparent disorder often takes the discussion in unexpected directions.  This is often a good indicator of creativity and shared responsibility for the problem at hand.

We have obviously voiced a bias for circularity in the above presentation of complementary  organizational cultures and architectures.  We wish to explain.  In all teams and organizations, there is a time for each type of polarity.  Public speaking is a useful example of the first level polarity, and debating of the second level.  All these communication forms or processes have their place with obvious advantages and limits. 

We are plugging for the development of circularity as a cultural architecture for teams, organizations and human systems as a useful tool for very specific reasons.  We are convinced that the circulation of energy as proposed by the circularity model is one easy and practical way to increase creativity, empowerment and reactivity in most organizationsal cultures  Furthermore, this type of organizational architecture is most in synch with the information age and closest to what could be identified as a start-up type of structure.

Should a system believe that the way to success is through a culture allowing better delegation, more real sharing of responsibilities, more interpersonal problem solving and commitment, better creativity, shared empowerment, then we are convinced that developing team circularity will help.   We are not opposing circularity processes as "better" than various polarities (that stance would be a polarity in itself), but proposing circularity as a means to develop more fluid organizational networks by initiating change in a practical way.

The ways to do this are quite simple and behavioral, and can be listed as the following list of dos and don'ts;

• DO feel responsible for the meeting process and results, no matter your position or role.  A successful meeting is everyone's responsibility, not only the moderator's or leader's.
• When speaking DO look at everyone and not only at the one person you wish to interest or convince.  No need to only consider the team leader or a favorite sparring partner.
• DON'T abuse of anecdotes and historical or contextual explanations to illustrate your position.  Long filibustering developments cuts the dynamic flow of collective dialogue.
• DO get to the point quickly, real energy flies in sparks.
• DON'T dwell on a joke or crack another one right after one is told.  Humor is fun, and a quick funny comment works wonders if you don't lose focus on the matter at hand.
• DO express your feelings if you are bored or when lost.  There's a good chance that  several other team members feel the same.
• DON'T slouch, but sit on the edge of your chair to express energy and interest.  Energy is known to flow much better in straight spinal columns 
• When someone contradicts you or openly suggests an idea that is different from yours, DON'T immediately jump in to defend your point of view, but look at other team members and wait for third, fourth and fifth opinions. 
• If a debate is taking place between two people DO open the discussion to others, by asking for third, fourth and fifth opinions.
• If you have several interesting thoughts on a subject, DON'T present them all at once thereby monopolizing the discussion.  Just present one idea and save the rest for later, after other people have reacted and also volunteered their ideas.
• If some team members have developed the bad habit of making long electoral filibustering speeches, DO tell them to get to the point.  In such cases, an "underdog" type of intervention is best, such as by playing "Stupid": "I'm sorry, you've lost me, can you tell me in simple terms what you're driving at?".
• When someone is hogging the stage, DO invite him or her to sit down and relax for awhile.
• When a discussion seems to slow down or get stuck, DO ask someone new for their input: "what do you think Joe?"  The bored-looking participants will usually give good insight as to what's going on and throw the subject or discussion on a different loop.
• When things look really stuck, DO call for a U.N.-style diplomatic break, and try to work out the process stalemate off-stage.

Although they also reflect large organizational cultures and implicit architectures, all types of energy exchange from polarities to circularity take place during team meetings, both between the team members and with the team leader.  Very naturally, depending on their training and personal style, the leader will be pulled into team processes, either in a central position, valued for his or her bright speeches (star system), or contested, or drawn into arguments and conflict with one or several preferred partners. In more mature team and organizational cultures, a natural form of circularity is quickly and naturally installed and everyone learns and grows together.

We have often observed that team leaders very easily slip into first or second level polarities  If this occurs too often, the process will unfortunately reinforce centralized communication processes within their teams.

One of the fundamental competencies of a systemic manager or leader consists in modeling different types of communication modes, and stretching the team into other modes of interaction, ultimately towards a more fluid circularity process. In this case the objective is getting the system to practice circularity as often as possible so as to install a more open and dynamic team interface architecture.

To achieve this goal several strategies are at hand:

• It will obviously be interesting for the leader to avoid a central geographic position, such as facing the group or standing up on a podium.  A preferred place would be to direct the team's interactive fluidity from within the group, holding a position similar to that of any other team member.
• The systemic leader can also avoid presenting and arguing his or her own models and point of view in a lengthy and convincing way.  This especially holds when facing a rebellious or contradictory team or team member. 
• In the event of a disagreement, the discussion is to be delegated into the team, eliciting other ideas, dialogues, new positions, different points of view.  Total participation from everyone is the objective rather than a verbal joust between hard-headed tenors and "to the finish".  In those cases, nobody wins.
• It will be useful for the systemic leader to limit personal interventions to just clarify or reformulate each team member's input.   Better leave discussion to the team itself, and speak no more than any other team member, if that much. 
• It will be likewise useful to delegate writing on the paperboard and avoid holding the floor.  The systemic leader will let the team moderate its own work with an occasional "facilitator" chosen amongst the other team members.
• The leader will also use gestures and body language to elicit silent team members' comments, to open the discussion to new and different points of view whenever "old timers" and "barons" seem to take over for too long.

These strategies will be used as modeling techniques throughout team meetings.  They are in keeping with the strategy of delegating team process to team members themselves as the meeting is taking place.  The objective is to bring the team to perceive the leader as just another team member, who will brings in an occasional personal precise point of view, much like anyone else, in a strategic and opportune time, and who will make decisions, when necessary.

This fluid position held by the leader within a circularity process will help the team gradually modify its systemic communication process and operational interfaces.  By modifying the communication process, through interpersonal interaction, the objective is to increase the team energy fluidity and develop the responsibility of each team member and the system as a whole. This process aims to increase the personal commitment of all team members and increase the maturity of the ensemble.

In our experience, this gradual learning process will simultaneously develop team co-responsibility, creativity, delegation, empowerment, reactivity and motivation and rapidly influence team results for the better.

Copyright 2008.  www.metasysteme.eu  Alain Cardon