Optimizing Organizational Change: Selecting the Right Facilitation Method

The person at the center of the concern does not have an understanding of the field and cannot comprehend how to use different inputs from different stakeholders. For that reason, the best strategy is to use Open Space technology to get a purpose from the administration team to make up large-scale changes in the college. Open Space Technology method brings people together through discussion, and activity providing arrangements to gather their thoughts, feelings, and ideas related to a key goal (Evoy, 2016). The senior administration team having a key goal will be able to gather and discuss their concerns, discover their thoughts, think about how the college as a whole can fix the problem, and drive forward.

The advantage of this method is that every idea raised by the members will receive equal consideration, and all the participants will be involved in the brainstorming sessions. The conference facilitator will neither direct nor manage the conversation and allow all participants to co-operate and discuss (Leith, 2016). The Open Space Technology processes would not involve actual leader in position so that to provide an equal ground to everyone. It will encourage the members to express their concerns and share their ideas about how to fix the issue.

Next, all members will have a collective responsibility to collaborate with each other and work for the betterment of the institution. In the end, the base of all the occurrences will be their topics and opinion rather than on a set of specified topics previously arranged for the particular matter.

All the participants will follow four steps of one agenda, marketplace, sessions, and closing ceremony. An employee will feel part of the process even if the company does not implement their idea. Therefore, they will be motivated to be part of the process that directed to the creation of the way push forward for the college. In addition, the method is most likely to create a complete solution to issues the college is facing, and the owner may get many insights as well.

I think the CEO of the video game company should consider Future Search, as the conflicting parties need to discuss the issue and reach a resolution. Future Search is the right method because it emphasis on task agenda and gives people a chance to assume more control of the agenda (Norum, 2005). The issues mentioned in the given scenario does not appear to pose any damage to the company’s growth and success. The old and younger generation are just uncertain between two proposed strategic directions.

The most important aspect of Future Search is sharing, which will bring them together, discuss and work towards a common goal. The CEO can select the best idea from both groups, combine them, and create a viable strategic way for the company. This method is the best as it provides an umbrella that boosts commitment. The CEO’s decision to create an open forum environment swill allow the participant to work on the issue, which is stopping them from accomplishing the company’s vision. It will also reduce tension between the two generations and provide a means to work towards the company goals.

The CEO of the insurance company should follow the Open Space Technology method. Open Space technology will bring all the employees together in a forum to converse issues and suggest ideas (Leith, 2016). That is where the main three departments within the company will come together to form what they see as their company vision, and the brainstorming session will lead to adaptation of the most popular idea. The method will ensure input from workers of all the departments guaranteeing a comprehensive decision-making process. The importance of Open Space technology is that it will ensure input from everyone, irrespective of the department in which they come from is given important and conversed (Owen, 2008). That way, the feeling that the sales department is favored will disappear, and all will have a chance to share their ideas.

The CEO should encourage the personnel in the IT and accounting department to share their ideas and be more expressive with opinions and recommendations to the problem. They will be motivated when they will see execution some of their ideas they had proposed during the open space technology forum. In that way, the employee will feel free and share their views even if not asked. Moreover, their job satisfaction level will go up, they will become more loyal to the company, and turnover in these departments will drop.

The CEO has violated several principles of open space technology. The first principle violation is prioritizing all the ideas. Open Space Technology brings together all the participants and their thoughts for debate in an open forum (Leith, 2016). The CEO should highlight every idea irrespective of the position of the idea giver in the company. They should discuss every idea presented by the participants, evaluate different options, and then select the best one. The problem in this scenario is that there is no equal treatment for the ideas given by the members. The topics proposed by the CEO are a priority, and the recommended solution formed was on what the CEO wanted to hear, and not what the employee felt was right.

The open forum discussion appeared a mere formality where the CEO wanted to create a perception of employee participation. In reality, they just rubber-stamped the decision already made by the CEO, which is an obvious violation of the major principles of open space technology. The second principle violated here is self-organization. All participants self organizes and peruses what interests them (Leith, 2016). To impress the CEO, the majority of them volunteered to talk about topics that the CEO wanted to discuss and ignored those coming up with new ideas.

All members are invited, but participation is willingly (Leith, 2016). Invitation means attendance is not mandatory, and one can choose whether to attend the meeting or not. Conversely, here attendance is mandatory for all the employees. All members sit in a circle to show that everybody is a leader (Leith, 2016). The people at the top level should not control the open forum process, and neither direct nor manage a conversation. The CEO should have allowed member conversation to move freely, should not have controlled the proceedings, and prioritized his ideas.