About the author: Ellen J. Wallach is a human resources consultant, speaker, writer, and filmmaker in Seattle, WA. She works with clients to find ways to keep employees happy and productive. Ellen designs mentoring systems and programs to develop and retain the best employees. She is interested in motivation, effectiveness, and success. She has co-authored a chapter in a new book, Mentoring for Diversity, by Clutterbuck and Ragins (Butterworth Heinenmann, 2001,) and writes frequently for popular and professional publications. Ellen has made four training films for the American Management Association and is the co-author of The Job Search Companion. She may be reached at (206) 524-6850 or Ejwallach@aol.com.

Despite decades of trying new approaches and theories, most organizations still haven't found proven ways to develop the skills, judgement and effectiveness of their managers.

Management training is expensive and can make a difference in the short term, but how much do managers actually remember and integrate in the long term? Most organizations are better at improving products and services than developing managers. So what's missing?

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center ("The Hutch"), an academic research environment of 2,500 employees in Seattle, began searching for a more effective and less expensive approach to continuous quality improvement for managers two years ago. The Hutch has many small business units, all with a strong culture of consensus building and participatory decision-making. Everyone works hard and long, but like many growing organizations, The Hutch has its share of communication, decision-making, and political challenges.

Managers have a wealth of knowledge and experience, and research shows that peer interaction is one of best learning methods. The Hutch wanted to create a forum to allow managers to talk candidly and learn from each other. A significant underlying problem, of course, is the isolation inherent in each manager's job. Managers know their peers are experiencing similar challenges and decisions, yet don't feel safe talking to each other.

Our response was to develop a facilitated peer-mentoring program with a small, carefully selected group of managers -- a Management Learning Group (MLG). This in-house discussion forum would naturally be viewed as threatening, touchy-feely and a waste of time. We overcame this natural resistance in a variety of ways: first, by personally inviting a select group chosen to participate for specific reasons. They would be senior managers, homogeneous by level and heterogeneous by function, whose jobs required them to connect with many diverse employee groups. These managers were influential, with a mix of strengths and organizational knowledge. For continuity, they were asked to make a six-month commitment to attend monthly two-hour meetings.

The director of organizational development selected and recruited the eight initial participants. She described the structure and goals of the pilot program, appealed to needs of the managers to reinforce formal training programs, and said it would be an interesting and fun experience. Everyone who was asked accepted. They agreed up front that after six months they would discuss how beneficial the MLG experience was and whether to continue.

As an external consultant, I facilitated the MLG. An external facilitator fosters a safer environment for managers to say what is on their mind without worrying about how it might impact their effectiveness in the organization. And the purpose of each meeting was: to ask "WhatÕs on your mind?" and provide a safe, confidential environment to talk about current problems.

The hope was that managers at the same level but in different functional areas could learn more about how The Hutch works and who can help them when they run into difficulty. We wanted to create a support network, with the added benefit of improving the effectiveness of cross-functional teams and reducing the age-old "us vs. them" functional mentality.

I created an agenda based on the interest of the group, convened the meetings, presented mini-training sessions and contributed information, research and current practices relating to group discussions. At first, the meetings were part structured workshops and topic-focused discussions and part participant-generated discussions of immediate concerns. Some months we read a management article or watched a film and discussed it. We talked about how to do more with less, how to listen to and analyze problems and how to motivate employees. I soon learned, however, that we might never get to the agenda I prepared.

As the meetings progressed, the structured time diminished and the "What is on your mind?" time increased. People arrived with topics and problems for discussion. How do you manage people who are in different physical locations? How many chances do you give a problem employee? How do you fire someone? What are the difficulties of promoting one member of a team over the others? How do you stay organized in chaos? How do you stay motivated when problems never stop? How can you maintain a sense of perspective in the midst of challenge?

I asked questions, kept the group focused and ensured ground rules were met. My most important role was to create a safe environment for honest interchange. Like participants, I, too, was a teacher and a learner.

After six months we voted whether to continue. It was unanimous--everyone wanted to continue. After a year we took another vote, with the same result. When one MLG member left after 1 and _ years, the others voted to continue, but felt the group needed new perspectives. We invited the OD director to select four new members. In the spirit of learning from every experience, the discussion of how to welcome new members into our established group led to talking about how each participant integrates new employees into their work groups.

The second year, we expanded the program. The OD director selected high potential employees at a level below the first group, whose positions required collaborating with different functional areas. Some of the participants in MLG-II report to members of MLG-I. Although this group developed its own personality and style, it, too, wants "What is on your mind" to be its main focus. After a year of working together and some attrition because of job changes, MLG-II is also adding new members. The group decided that 10 plus a facilitator is the ideal number of members.

Participants are able to evaluate effectiveness with their feet. In both groups, unless a member has left The Hutch, all continue to attend and participate. A couple of members have taken "leaves" for a few months when their work became too consuming. Others like attending during high stress periods. One commented, "I need this time for my own development especially when work is chaotic." Our success as a management-training tool is anecdotal. Without sharing the content of their discussions, group members have told Hutch executives they value the program and believe it should continue. When asked how they benefit, participants provided these comments:

• "It is a safe environment to talk and think things through. I have a group of peers who are a sounding board with lots of perspectives. People say what they really think."
• "We focus on underlying management issues. I learn how other people do things that I can use. We do not get caught up in shoptalk. We discuss pure management and political issues."
• "Organizations do not train people to become managers. I have holes in my management skills. I have learned a lot of lessons here."
• "It is easy to have tunnel vision and blinders about the organization. Here I have learned to see the Hutch from different perspectives. I have thought about areas of the organization other than my own. I have gotten out of my box."
• "We each get isolated and feel we cannot share problems. I often feel like I must be the only one who has had an experience. This group has helped me see that others have the same issues and challenges."
• "This is better than a class with lectures or case studies. Here we talk about what is real and what I need today."
• "It is easier to do business and be on teams with other group members. I know people in a different way and feel more comfortable."

The program is more than two years old and both groups are going strong. We usually begin with "What is on your mind?" I come prepared, but the group decides what is important to discuss at the start of each meeting. We are about to begin MLG-III.

This type of forum is a cost-effective reinforcement and supplement to structured management training. Even if your environment does not seem receptive to such groups, the benefits of forming them may outweigh the difficulties in getting started. Begin small and build as managers feel more comfortable sharing and consider these suggestions:

• Choose participants who are homogeneous by level and heterogeneous by function, provide a mix of skill strengths and experiences can maintain confidentiality. Extend invitations to participate either in person or by phone. The more senior the person asking, the more attractive and important the perception of the program.
• Choose an external OD consultant, rather than an internal trainer, to create a safe environment. Watch group process. Spend a time initially and continuously making people feel comfortable. The facilitator should have extensive knowledge and experience in management development.
• Ask for an initial commitment of six months and evaluate the program every six months thereafter. Continually ask, "What is going well?" and "How can this program be more effective?" Brainstorm a list of topics and design structured mini-presentations and discussions.

A discussion group can help your managers get connected by providing a way for them to discuss real problems in real time. In difficult times like these it is critical that they have a place to air private concerns and consider the impact of current events on staff. Given these benefits, everybody wins -- your managers and your organization.

©copyright 2001 Ellen J. Wallach