Stucco: Further Reading
Read Stucco: User Guide first!
Hints & Tips
Start by describing The Mess in whatever way it shows up, this will overlap with the four domains, and it is helpful to have an element of each in this first conversation.
When working with a group, don't move on from describing The Mess and Driving Conditions until everyone has agreed on the description of what needs to change.
When identifying the Beliefs that would be consistent with the actions taken in the face of the current situation, act as an 'outside observer' - step out of the situation and ask what someone would have to believe or assume to be true in order to have taken that action:
Refer to "they", "he" or "she" when stating beliefs rather than "we" or "you"
Consider asking the group or individuals to change seats to change the dynamics before generating Beliefs
Don't make it personal, and don't make them wrong – telling someone what they believe can feel judgemental, an accusation that they are irrational
Before choosing new Beliefs and Doings, tell the story of how The Mess came to exist (it can be helpful to use the Insight Cycle as a framework for this playback) – this presents The Mess back in a way that enables us to make choices and empowers us to change our minds.
Finish the Stucco conversation by finding an action that can be used as a learning experiment – a venture that we can put into practice quickly, and will test and validate our new Beliefs and Doings.
Key Learning Points
Only by taking a step back can we really see what needs to be changed
When we get stuck we often don't know what has gone wrong, and focus on Driving Conditions, Doings and Forces, rather than looking inside ourselves to see whether we have contributed to The Mess
It's much easier to change our mind than it is to change the world, but we need help confronting our Beliefs and assumptions
Stucco In Action
THE BUSINESS PROBLEM
A company's HR Department was suffering from increasing information overload, primarily as a result a huge influx of emails on a daily basis. The amount of email of no relevance to the team was on the increase and wading through redundant information was starting to take up team members' valuable time. Team members tried various things to overcome the situation but nothing was working, it only appeared to result in yet more emails when they logged on each morning.
APPROACH
It appeared that the HR department was stuck in what we refer to as 'the mess' - complex, poorly understood, systemic processes which produce degenerative conditions for the client community. The degenerative condition in this case was described by the HR department as "increasing information overload". We could also describe the HR department's situation as a vicious cycle. It had taken various steps to reduce information overload but it appeared that this had no positive impact on the situation; in fact, things appeared to be getting worse. Our first option for tackling 'the mess' or a situation that appears like a vicious cycle is to use Stucco.
WORKFLOW
An initial 30-minute meeting was held with the HR Director to discuss the current situation and understand the true nature of the problem. Stucco was then conducted in one three hour session with the company's HR team (6 HR executives and the HR Director), which generated output as summarised below. The HR Director took responsibility for developing, circulating and following up an action plan for the team, which included all the new actions arrived at by Stucco.
THE PROCESS
Conditions
The starting condition to work from was initially stated as "information overload". However, this needed to be more concrete and clear therefore we led some discussion to unpack the starting condition for Stucco. Questions asked included:
How do you know that you are suffering from information overload?
What is the consequence of information overload?
New data emerging from the group included the fact that the amount of emails the group was receiving was up by 30% per week compared with the same time last year. Team members were spending an average of 10% of their working day sifting through irrelevant emails. The consequence was that several projects were slipping and the team was failing to meet deadlines.
The starting condition was stated as: "Information overload, caused mainly by email, is affecting the HR team's performance, particularly its ability to meet deadlines".
Doings
The team was asked what actions it had taken to date. The following output was given (you can try to spot those that would fit into the three categories of right doings, wrong doings and not doings):
Using preview pane to check emails for relevance
Applying importance levels to all emails sent
Reading unwanted emails because they seem interesting
Sending out blanket emails to the whole company
Not deleting unwanted emails
People using the reply to all function carelessly
Responding to emails the day they arrive in our in-box
We don't let anyone else check our emails
Forces
The team was then asked what external forces helped contribute to the current situation.
24/7 culture
Email has become the most popular method of communication - it is the default ahead of phone these days
A reply-to-all button exists in our email package
Email exists!
Workloads are increasing due to increased targets
People outside the team send a lot of emails
Beliefs
The group was then asked to look at the actions listed and speculate on what beliefs, assumptions, habits or policies must exist for the group to be acting as it did, given the condition of information overload. The following beliefs were stated in relation to each action:
At least some of the emails received each day are relevant
Categorising emails will help diminish the amount of overload
It is acceptable to read any email, even if it has nothing to do with our work
It isn't important to delete emails
The 'reply to all' function can be used when replying to any email
Emails have to be responded to the day they arrive
Nobody else can be trusted to open our emails
Beliefs Revisited
The group was then asked to read through the list of beliefs stated and identify those that it might be able to flip so as to try out and experiment with new beliefs or assumptions. Having done this and generated a large list of new belief 'candidates', the group was then asked to select those that looked most likely to result in actions that would have a positive impact on the driving condition.
The new beliefs selected were:
On some days, none of the emails received are relevant
Categorising emails does not reduce the amount being received
It is not acceptable to spend time reading emails just because they are interesting
It is important to delete emails that are old or irrelevant
The 'reply to all' function should be used sparingly and only when it is absolutely necessary for everyone to see your reply
Some emails are urgent and therefore require a quick reply but others can be left for a day or two
PAs can be trusted to read our emails
Doings Revisited
The group was then asked to come up with a new set of trial actions that could be taken as a result of the new set of beliefs. The following actions were listed as possible candidates:
We train PAs to know what emails are priorities and what ones are irrelevant to us
PAs do a first pass at our in boxes twice daily. They sift out emails that are irrelevant and put others in different folders according to priority
Set up email prioritisation system
Delete old or irrelevant emails or ask PAs to do this
Only use the reply to all function when it is absolutely necessary for all those on the distribution list to see your reply – set up rules on when this would be the case
Set up rules around response times for different types of email
Selecting New Actions
Each of the candidate actions listed was tested by assessing what outcome each would result in, giving the forces identified earlier. The actions selected, based on their perceived ability to positively impact the driving condition were:
PAs do a first pass at our in boxes twice daily. They sift out emails that are irrelevant and put others in different folders according to priority
Set up email prioritisation system
PAs delete old and unwanted emails
CONCLUSION
The new actions have had a dramatic and positive impact for the HR team:
HR team members now spend an average of 2% of their working day sifting through unwanted or irrelevant emails, an 8% decrease from previous statistics
Project deadlines not met decreased from 20% to 7%
The HR team's approach to managing email has been deemed best practice throughout the organisation
Other departments are now using the HR team's email prioritisation system as well as following its example of making better use of PAs' time to help with incoming emails
