Boundaries as opportunities for learning

By Roger Duck and Jane Searles.

Think of a time when you noticed how different ‘they’ are from ‘us’. In that moment, did the relationship become more interesting and alive? Or did it flatten into what looked like a boundary – a barrier to be overcome or a connection to be engineered?

This i2Insights contribution is intended to stimulate your imagination by giving examples from practice of relationships between people and teams being treated as opportunities for learning, rather than boundaries.

Most readers of i2Insights work in research. We believe there is much of relevance here for any context in which people are working together, including research teams.

The context

We expand here on the idea that ‘a system boundary is simultaneously a process of drawing a distinction and identifying an active relationship of mutual learning’ (Duck and Searles 2021).

We are not so much advocating for ‘rewilding’ boundaries, as for avoiding ‘taming’ relationships before they have had a chance to flower.

We have rooted this account in Jane’s experiences of a community initiative in Scotland, and our mutual learning through reflective discussion. In the winter months, volunteers provide a Saturday evening meal in a community hall. This is for anyone living in the area, provided on a ‘pay what you can’ basis, supported by other donations.

The volunteers organise themselves so that no individual is indispensable. This has been done by developing clarity of the roles required, supported by a peer-based culture that enables roles to be passed around between different people. There is no hard and fast divide between those who ‘do’ and those who ‘organise’, nor between those volunteering and those dining.

We highlight four examples of learning situations: 1) working as a team, 2) working across internal team boundaries, 3) working across a formal organisational boundary, and 4) nurturing a culture to support self-organisation.

Working as a team

We have learnt that people are able to experience ongoing relationships of learning between roles, where people value different perspectives as opportunities, and work together as a team, while still appreciating the value of role boundaries in defining the scope of responsibilities.

In our example, people in different roles sometimes suggest and try out new practices together. A young volunteer was concerned the group was throwing away a lot of sugar. Reusing unused sugar from the bowls breaks hygiene regulations. She and another volunteer realised they could dramatically reduce the waste, without breaking the law, by putting out only a small amount, as long as someone kept an eye on the levels. This is now the practice. Similar kinds of small but practical learning have led, after two years, to efficient ways of working suited to the specific context and volunteers’ personal preferences.

Some volunteers, in some roles, prefer predefined ways of working which do not change in response to others, perhaps because this provides a sense of control, efficiency, safety and/or identity. Where this is the case, members of the group have realised that sensitivity is needed to encourage learning. If the need for safety is paramount, or if there is a history of conflict, one way to enable such learning can be to imagine a ‘safe house’: a place where both people can leave their roles behind and talk about their different perspectives.

Working across boundaries between internal teams

We have learnt that the vitality of relationships can be nurtured between internal teams, while still using agreed procedural interactions when useful for efficiency.

In our example, the kitchen and the front of house teams both need to know what diners have ordered. In week 2, front of house panicked when the kitchen team moved the hand-written orders from the serving hatch into the kitchen. In week 3, the teams put in place a formal procedure by creating two copies of each order using carbon paper. Two years on, people now coordinate in practice by talking to one another, as a more relaxed atmosphere has developed. The paper records act only as reminders.

Building in predictable procedures between teams can be a way of dealing with what is commonly called the ‘silo problem’ in many organisations. Our example demonstrates what can be achieved when both teams focus on being more flexible with one another. It is then possible to work in ways that honour the vitality of the relationship, only using formulaic solutions across boundaries to support this where necessary.

Working across a formal organisational boundary

A formal organisational boundary is also a relationship and, therefore, an opportunity for learning.

In our example, the distinction between volunteers and diners could easily look and feel like an organisational boundary. But volunteers dine and diners volunteer and, each Saturday, a volunteer plays the role of host, responsible for welcoming everyone and introducing people to one another. These practices have spread into a general friendliness, creating a sense of overall community which is generally felt more deeply than any role-based distinctions between people.

Nurturing a culture to support self-organisation

We have learnt that embracing boundaries as opportunities for learning can help when nurturing self-organising teams.

In our example, some volunteers are particularly motivated to ensure that people are free to exchange roles and to come and go over time. This peer-based working extends to the aspiration that no role should have the right to arbitrarily exercise ‘power over’ any other.

Even one volunteer being overtly critical or behaving disrespectfully can affect the enjoyment and motivation of others. The group has found it must acknowledge and address discomfort as it arises, being sensitive to changing personal context and individuals’ differing assumptions and motivations.

Challenges are ongoing, particularly in the face of the recurring question: ‘this may be working, but who’s actually in charge?’ There is also an inevitable tension between experimentation and the need to deliver meals safely in 90 minutes. Nevertheless, although it requires continual vigilance, the group is achieving a good balance between efficiency and nurturing the social interactions that support inclusion.

So what?

How might these lessons translate to your experience of teamwork in research, or in any other roles in life?

How relevant is our experience that when you focus on being human together, you are more likely to notice that every boundary is an impoverished view of a rich relationship of mutual learning? And that our ability to learn together, and to change, are destroyed by pre-scripted procedural roles and interactions?

How have you combined teamwork with the social process of learning? How might you find the time, care and persistence to nurture a culture of curiosity and courage to ‘dance’ together? What difference might that make?

Reference:

Duck, R. and Searles, J. (2021). Designing freedom together. Organization Development Review, 53, 5: 32-40. (Available online in open access through: https://www.academia.edu/70156929/Designing_Freedom_Together)

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution or the work on which the contribution is based. (For i2Insights policy on artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biography: Roger Duck PhD works mostly as a consultant through his own business, Mapsar Limited, drawing on systemic ideas to help people learn together and take effective action. His work focuses on creating conditions for learning and change in organisations, and the wider systems in which they operate. He is active in networks exploring systemic practice and participatory learning for transformative innovation. He is based near Manchester, UK.

Biography: Jane Searles BSc is a systemic architect. Her work addresses whole systems, which have customers or citizens at their heart, and focusses on people and effective teamwork (and enabling technology where useful). She is now retired and is applying her experience as a community activist in her local area, and as such has been deeply involved throughout the local community meals initiative, which is now in its third year. This experience, especially moments of heightened emotion and learning, is drawn on for examples for this i2Insights contribution. She is based in Fife, Scotland, UK.

---