 Basically, I need to, as you probably already saw, I need to admit that I'm feeling a little bit like a substitute teacher. Because really, I'm not the person who should be talking to you today. Because Donna Lee is the person who ran the session. What we managed to do, and cued us to the organizing team at Agile Northhance for trusting me and running with me on this one, it was a, we made a request to do a slightly unorthodox presentation, I suppose, a slightly unorthodox session. And Donna is a human assistant dynamics coach in Tokyo. And she ran the live session that you're gonna see a very short recording of later on. And she should be here talking to you because she is the expert in this. But it's sort of crazy a clock in Tokyo at the moment. And it would be completely unfair for her to be here. So I'm kind of here on her behalf as a substitute teacher. And so the first thing I really need to do is to thank her for running the session and for prepping me on this, but also to thank the volunteers. So because what we did was we did an actual practical exercise on someone's real wicked issue, we wanted to make that as real as possible for everybody. And the best way to do that was to try and create some kind of safe environment. So we had a recording before so we're recording in advance that you're gonna see a video of that was held offline. So thank you to all of the people who participated in that, not just Tom who put himself forward with his wicked issue. So thank you to all of you. I'm just here to help run you through it really. So what is human systems dynamics? That's the first question. So HSD is basically a field of research and it's a practice. It could well be very similar to what Imran was talking earlier on. So the coaching approach is certainly based on the same kind of principles as coaching. It's fundamental assertion really is that any system that has human involvement automatically becomes a complex adaptive system. And complex adaptive systems is a field that you can read up on, you can research it so well understood and well researched area. And because, well basically in any complex adaptive system and anything with humans involved is one of those. You've got at least semi-autonomous agents. Now it's up to you whether you decide whether you are autonomous or whether you are semi-autonomous as a human being, whether your colleagues are or not but they're free to interact with one another and will do so in unpredictable ways. And because of that, the results of those actions and interactions with one another those unpredictable interactions, they're gonna generate what are called system-wide patterns. Basically when people are involved, things get messy. All right, I'm gonna summarize it. Things become unpredictable. And when you're in this kind of unpredictable environment, while it is very, very tempting to predict because we tend to try and do that. We try and tend to reduce things down to cause an effect in linear patterns. To really be effective in those kinds of environments, human systems dynamics would suggest that instead of that, we need to focus our efforts on seeing what's happening. Try and understand the implications of the patterns that we're seeing. Generate options and then try and take some action to influence those patterns as they emerge. So it summarized there on this slide. We thrive because we see patterns clearly. We seek to understand them out with courage. And it does require courage to act in uncertainty, to act with unpredictability. You'll have heard the VUCA term that we're operating in and volatile and certain complex and ambiguous times. And that does cause all sorts of anxiety. It creates wicked issues, first and foremost. Human systems dynamics as a field, as a general operating principle of trying to create simple rules. So because we can't standardize actions in advance, we have to react. Human systems dynamics believes that either consciously or unconsciously, we will create simple rules. Some heuristics, some rules of thumb, if you like. Some really understood either consciously or unconsciously ways of working with one another so that we can accommodate and react in a consistent manner. So each complex adaptive system, each system will create their own simple rules, either consciously or unconsciously. These six on the screen here just happen to be the six simple rules of the Human Systems Institute. But they're a good example of some simple rules that will help everybody in that system act somewhat consistently while autonomously and without trying to predict the unpredictable. So bear with me on this one. So standing in inquiry, this is what we're gonna spend most of the session talking about because this is the session, this is the exercise that Donna walked our volunteers through. But because of complexity and unpredictability, the Human Systems Institute believe that we need to be curious. So be curious, seek to understand and try and find out. We'll come back to that in a little bit more detail because that's gonna be the main topic. Finding the energy and difference, what does that mean? Well, basically when you're in a complex system, the energy is generally stored in where there are differences. These could be differences in status, in power, in expertise, in culture, anything where the people involved in the system have significant levels of difference, we have tension and tension gives us energy. We can use that energy to influence the system. And that's all we can hope to do is influence the system because it's forever changing, it's forever evolving. We zoom in and zoom out, what does that mean? It means that the patterns that we see are fractal. So we will see this replicating across systems at different levels, at different layers. All of our complex systems are made up of layers and layers and entangled relationships that we can't even begin to try and unpick and see where they start and where they finish. So instead we focus on patterns and we can see something at a high level and we can zoom in and we can see the granularity of those patterns in real time and how it's really affecting things that are going on at the local level, at the personal level, but we can also zoom out from a really specific situation and see the more systemic pattern, the more systemic significance, if you like. We connect through stories and impact, just generally using the power of narrative to explain in new ways. When something's very, very complex and a really useful tool is to analogize, to use metaphors, to use stories, to tell real examples of what we're trying to mean because the actual details are too complex for us to get across sometimes. We try and look for what's true and I'm gonna say a lot more about what we mean by that later on because that's a really important statement. But because really it's quite difficult to find what's true, what's really true when things are really complex, it's actually the search for what's true that's more important than hoping to find what's true. I know that sounds a little bit cryptic, but when we come on to define what a wicked problem is that will make a lot more sense. And then finally, we celebrate life because no matter how complex, how challenging and how difficult and some of these wicked problems that are out there, they are really systemic and very difficult and affect us very deeply and personally and globally. No matter how difficult that gets, we can never really be ceased to be amazed by how creative and how intellectual we can be as humans, as groups and the society. So we should celebrate that. If you wanna find out more, there's a link there. So those are six simple rules. Those aren't the six simple rules. They are six simple rules of the Human Systems Institute. In your own complex adaptive system, you will have your own simple rules, whether or not you know them. The other thing that I want to bring up is this concept of adaptive action. Now this was something that I was really pleased to learn, that this was part of Human Systems Dynamics because I've been using this structure, what so what now, what for a long time but not necessarily realizing its significance and where it comes from. But this three question approach forms what is known as adaptive action. So by looking at the objective, and again, you'll probably see some very similarities and some big similarities to what Imran was talking about with the Gros model and the Oscar model here. What is talking very much about objective information? So what patterns can we see? What interactions can we see? What decisions help us and what decisions don't help us? And then we look a little bit at interpretation. So what does that actually mean? So how do we make sense of those patterns? And once we've attempted to or to a degree make sense of those patterns, what are we gonna do with that information? What are we gonna do with that rationalization? So there is an element of forward progress built into this adaptive action. And it's a very iterative process. So it's at the heart of this, it's got an agile approach at its heart and it's adaptive action. We look at something, we do some interpretation, we try and make sense of it, we do something with it and then we see what happens as a result of it. And every day you're gonna be challenged by lots of things that are wicked, that are sticky, that are tricky, that are gonna be challenging. And the idea here is that you can try and use this iterative approach to try and make sense of what's going on and make some progress because you probably won't be able to solve it. So we're gonna be looking at using the practice of standing in inquiry to deal with something that human assistance dynamics cause wicked problems or wicked issues. And the definition of a wicked problem or a wicked issue is something that's unsolvable. It's something that comes from a complex system. So you generally get these unsolvable wicked problems in complex systems, not necessarily complicated systems. So you've got really open boundaries. You don't really perhaps know where the boundaries are. There are a significant number of variables that are at play. And we probably can't understand how certainly to the fullest extent how they are independent, how they impact on one another, where the cause and effect is. These relationships probably quite complicated and complex in their own rights. And they're not linear. They probably can't tell that if you change this then this will happen. And they're impossible to solve because they can't end. They repeat, which is a good thing, but not exactly. So you'll probably see the same kind of wicked issue but with subtle differences, subtle nuances in various different circumstances. So you won't be able to solve it forever. There are many different ways of tackling it. Many of which will probably be useful. Many of which may have an impact. But on their own, none of the approaches that we have at hand are sufficient in solving it. Many different people can look at the same wicked issue and have a very different perspective and be true at the same time. So we can all see the same thing differently and or be correct. There is no one objective truth to this. And there are patterns at multiple levels, multiple scales. So you can look at many different things and think, is this a wicked issue? And to take a topical issue, the pandemic is a wicked issue, right? It's happening in a complex system. There are many independent variables that none of us really understand. The relationships are very complex and non-linear. We don't know that it can be stopped. It's repeating in many different ways, but not exactly the same. There are many different ways of approaching it, but none of them is sufficient on its own. We have different perspectives about the pandemic and a lot of them can be true simultaneously. It's a wicked issue, something that we wouldn't be able to solve, but we can influence, right? And that's what Donna walked us through in this exercise of standing inquiry. Now, before she talked, she walked us through this exercise. She gave us a bit of a grounding in this. And I'll explain the exercise a little bit before you see it. But there were four things that we needed to bear in mind while trying to stand in inquiry. So we have one person who's wicked issue we were looking to help them with. And there were many other people who were observing and participating from an inquiry perspective. And those people standing in inquiry were encouraged to try and be much more mindful and conscious about turning any judgments they may have about the situation into genuine and authentic curiosity. It's been curious about the situation rather than assuming they know something, turning any disagreement they might have into something more akin to shared exploration rather than trying to challenge or give a different approach or a different perspective, sharing in the exploration, trying to turn any defensiveness that they may feel into self-reflection and trying to turn any assumptions they may have into questions. These were the challenges that were put to us who weren't coming forward with their wicked issue. And how it worked was one person, one brave volunteer was willing to share something that was challenging them at work. And we had a certain level of confidentiality even though we were recording it. We tried to create a level of safety and confidentiality by offering the opportunity once we finished the recording to edit out anything that we didn't want to share or would be appropriate to share in the post-production, hence the recording advice. As it turns out, we didn't really need to do any of that, but it was there. And I think quite an important part of creating that sense of safety. That's the what. So one person shares their wicked issue. The so what part is where the observers, the other participants had the chance to ask questions. And those questions, we were encouraged to make them open-ended. We were encouraged to try and strip out any disguised advice, whether it was intentional or not. We weren't trying to advise. You've probably all been asked a question that was advice in the form of a question. That's what we're trying to avoid. We also wanted to ask questions that would be beyond our knowledge. So we didn't want to ask a question where we thought we knew the answer. That was an important challenge that we had to meet. And we were fully aware that the questions we asked, were not going to be answered. And then after that round of questioning, the person whose wicked issue it was, was asked to consider what they wanted to do as a result, what they were inspired to take forward, what Donna called a next-wise action, something that would be within their control, reasonable, offered promise, and had the opportunity to get some kind of short-term response so they could see the results of that action. So I've set that up. I'm now going to play the video. It's nine minutes long. And you will see the exercise in full with our participants. That requires me to change my sharing settings, so I'm going to share with you a video instead. Products or projects? Jeff. The audio isn't coming through. Now, Jeff. You're on mute, Jeff. Maybe you'll... Did it stop when you put yourself on mute? I don't know. I was trying to keep my noise out. Go on then. I'll have a go. Okay, so trying to think how to phrase it really. So I guess the problem, the wicked problem itself is, how do I gain engagement from a development team during the discovery phase of a product or a project? Often I feel like there's a lack of engagement and it's quite difficult to try and raise that engagement. So that's a wicked problem that I've faced. Not sure why that is, whether it's a genuine lack of engagement or whether it's not specifically now, but it's a problem I've faced and I know I will come up again in the future. So having solutions to address that when it advises would be useful. Okay, Judy, would you like to read your question? Oh, so what makes you believe that you don't have engagement from the team? What behaviours are you seeing? So what do you mean by engagement? Yeah, the question really is if you feel there's an issue, what is giving you that feeling of that issue? Is it like body language or lack of communication? Is it with the same group or different groups or yeah, just to try and get an idea of the backgrounds? So that's basically how did you realise or how could you measure that there is lack of engagement? What benefits would greater engagement give the team? My question is what are the signs that they are not engaged? What is the level of control over the non-engagement? And my third one is, I was gonna write it as, what is your intention behind introducing that method? From me is, what are the engagement levels on the other phases? Yeah, this is from me because it's a discovery phase, do you really need the entire team to be engaged in the discovery phase or having certain more experienced and technical people with help? What or who do you feel might be stopping the team from being engaged? What else might be a factor in their lack of engagement, non-engagement? For me, if you can draw engagement, what does it look like? What makes you think this is going to continue? Because you can't see into the future unless this is a reoccurring thing. In which case, have you thought about how to stop it? What would you do differently than what you're doing right now through the engagement? What would you want to have happen for them to behave as engaged? Why is engagement important to the discovery stage? Is it more important to any other stage? So what happens if you don't get them engaged? Are you sure that greater engagement is what you want? What is the level of engagement in other kinds of activities? Instead of engaged, what about getting them married? Sorry, I just need to write that pun. Somehow you would make that one. What is your control over how engaged they can be? For me is my question. What is your level of engagement for them getting engaged? From me, I would like to understand how does the existing discovery process work? Is this process a standard process within the company? Or is it something you can change at all and tweak? How do you feel when you see this engagement? Maybe the last question for Judy. Does the team enjoy or hate the discovery stage? Yeah, thanks for all those questions, everyone. Just looking back to see which one's stood out. I guess it's quite interesting about how do you... There are a few related to this, which is how do you measure or realise the lack of engagement? What are the signs? That is an interesting one about how you detect disengagement. It depends on how you define disengagement. So for me, when I said that I found this in the past and I would like to expand to the future, I wasn't necessarily referring to the same team. I was thinking more along the lines of future teams. I can imagine this becoming a problem in the future as well. But my definition of engagement or how I see it is it kind of being a one-way street. So requirements are going into the team, but there's often a lack of questioning coming back. And you know that there's thoughts and questions that potentially the team have got, but there's not coming back the other way. So that's my perception of that and that's kind of hopefully answers that question about how I measure that. It's hard to put a definitive measure on, like a number on it or engagement level. Just looking through some of the questions as well. Drawing what engagement looks like, that was an interesting one as well. I'm not quite sure how I'd draw it, but I'd probably draw something that represented like a bidirectional communication going on with the harmony within the team where there's a lot of noise happening. As in a lively environment, lots of conversation, lots of collaboration. In that respect, you have to take, I hate that word control, but it's like when you're in a meeting with loads of people and everybody starts talking to each other. If there is one person who's sort of steering the general of the meeting, it just goes haywire. What about giving each one responsibility? I'm just going to stop you there. So just reminding that we're still in inquiry here rather than advice. It's tempting. It's tough, isn't it? Because you want to help. You want to help? No, I don't. Yes, no. It's in my nature to help people. I know, I know. I don't know, how would I rephrase it then? Maybe you don't need to. So Tom, going back to you as you read through the questions, like what would you like to do as a next wise action? Possibly put some measures around it, trying to understand the root cause of that and trying to understand whether there is a genuine disengagement or whether it's something cultural, because often in teams where you've got, especially now, you've got teams quite multicultural, right? And is that the reason? It's not through disengagement. It's just because through cultural reasons people might not be comfortable engaging and they might feel like it's an expectation that it is a one-way street and just being it should be served requirements and serve the solution. So maybe it's that, maybe it's not a pure disengagement. So trying to get under the covers of that is something to work on, I think. So I know Tom's here. Is there anything you want to add, Tom? I suppose the thing to add for me is about the experience. It's an interesting experience. I've never done that kind of activity before and for me it's quite a comfortable experience with people that are offering you sometimes advice on what feels like advice, even though it's not really advice, it's questioning, but you want to respond and to not be allowed to respond to people that are trying to help you out feels a bit antisocial and uncomfortable. So that's kind of some feedback from the experience. But as you do it more often, I think that's something that you would be able to become comfortable with. But yeah, fantastic technique and something that really does provoke a lot of thoughts and action as well. So great things to be part of. How did not being able to provide an answer to the questions help you, do you think? I think the biggest, probably the biggest benefit was that you could, because you're inside the problem and other people, it's not other people's problem, you can kind of fabricate your own, because you can fabricate your own solutions, it's not being influenced too heavily on other people's experiences, it's solely your experience, because only you truly know how you feel and what the environment's actually like that you're kind of talking about. Yeah. Being able to be asking you questions, it was quite odd to begin with, not seeing an answer come back, because that's what we're used to. But in the end, I think it freed me up to ask something that I probably wouldn't have asked if I knew I was going to get an answer, if you know what I mean. And what I noticed when you were giving your debrief was Donna asked you which questions landed, actually you didn't pull out a particular question, you pulled out a couple and merged them together, if you like, which actually led to your action around metrics and engagement and culture. Yeah, it was quite, it was quite hard to, because you were being peppered with so many questions, it was hard, it's quite difficult to, because I wasn't writing them down, it was hard to, there was something that kind of stood out in writing key things that I could use to kind of formulate a response. So that was difficult, because it was coming so fast. For everybody else's benefit, they were coming in the chat as well, so we were typing them as well as asking them, so Tom had a record of all of them, as they were coming out at the end. But I know just from my personal experience, it's difficult when I'm coaching, and even if I'm adopting one of those models that Imran taught you through this morning, it's very difficult to get off a train of thought as a coach. And so if I ask a question and you give me an answer, I'll naturally follow up down that line of thought, whereas actually we were giving you lots and lots of questions, and it was a case of, well, what stuck for you? Not what stuck for us, but what stuck for you? And it turned out that it was a sort of combination of things, which was quite interesting. I'm going to ask David, or anybody actually, if they can help with a little bit of logistical arrangements and putting people into breakout rooms for a minute. And basically what I would like people to do is talk with some other people about what they noticed in the video during the exercise. What did you learn? So what's your so what? Is there anything in particular that you would like to do as a next wise action based on what you've seen and what you've interpreted? And if anybody particularly wants to share what went on or what they talked about, absolutely, I'm more than happy to do that, but I'm not going to put anybody on the spot. We were joking that we'd invite Tom to another talk session. I mean, another inquiry session. I'm an experienced inquiry. Victim, I mean, an inquiry. Jeff, the video that Jeff shared didn't really convey the awkwardness of people not wanting to share, but it was good to do it. I mean, one of the big things I think it came up as well, was that real time? How much time did you have to digest the questions? The frequency of the questions was pretty real. I mean, I did see Jeff, you did take some gaps out, but it was pretty much real time. There would just been literally machine gun that. We were discussing, we quite like the idea of doing something like that, having the questions machine gun that you and then having like three years to go and think about it. Which if it's a big complicated problem, it's probably quite useful to get that distance and the time rather than trying to have to come up with an answer straight away. To be honest, I did wonder kind of relate to that about how long you've got to think about it was, I'll mention this in the breakout room just now is what would happen if you get to the so what and nothing's really resonated. You haven't really been inspired by the questions. What happens if you say no idea? I don't know what I'd do. Would you go back around the loop? Find some new inquiries? I mean, to be honest, I haven't seen that happen. So there's an argument for is it worth preparing for something that's highly unlikely to happen or just trust the process. But my instinct would be that that would be telling me something. I'm not sure what it would be telling me, but it would be telling me something. Probably to do with my scope of control or my outlook of optimism or helplessness or something like that. But if I didn't feel that there was something that I could do something small that I could try that would be promising after all of that potential help. And yeah, that would that was that would make me really think about my place in this. There are some questions in the chat. So John says, it felt very full on, would you do this in a session like that with eight people who would want one to one? And then, in fact, while you were in your breakout room, David and I were talking about this, and it was actually a question that came up in the session as well that we had a bit of a discussion about. What's the optimum number? What are the limits and things like that? Donna was saying how she's seen this work in very large groups and even smaller than the groups that we've had. My default that I tend to work towards is around about six or seven. But that's my personal biases that are coming through in that probably filtered from years of scrum where the optimum team size is seven and seven is the magic number and all these different things that are affecting my view. But the two things that I'm trying to get a balance of when I'm looking at numbers for me is I want diversity. I want a number of different perspectives for the richness of the inquiry. But equally, I don't want so many people that anybody doesn't feel safe. And generally speaking, the higher the numbers, the less safety there is in general. And then from the one-to-one perspective, I was saying how this is something that you can take off the shelf and you can run as a group session and benefit from the diversity perspectives. But equally, this is an opportunity for each one of us, not just Tom to get some benefit, but each one of us to practice standing in inquiry because it's very difficult sometimes to not get carried away with trying to find a solution. It's very difficult to avoid judging or having our own preconceptions about what's going on, filtering it through our own experiences and practice getting into that state of genuine, authentic curiosity. It's an opportunity to practice and work and develop and strengthen one of those specific coaching muscles, if you like, that you could then bring into your one-to-one coaching practice or your one-to-one agile coaching or even just your own self-reflection, getting more inquiry-like with your own personal reflections. Did that answer the question, John? I think so, yes, thank you. Ian asks, have I seen something like this go badly wrong? It could feel like being on the end of a bit of a kicking. I think that's really why Donna made a really good point about defining what inquiry is and that idea of it's not about asking leading questions. It's not about passing judgment. It's not about giving opinions. It's not about giving advice. It's not about making that person feel like they've missed something. It's genuine curious, genuine authentic curiosity. And that's why I don't think I've seen it go wrong, but I mean, I would say even with that intent, even with the way that it was framed and set up with people knowing what they were getting involved in and all that preamble from Donna that put it, once you're in there, it's very, very difficult to stay in inquiry. And so it could, unless you've got some facilitation, someone neutral perhaps, who can just keep an eye out for, are we getting out of inquiry again? It could easily fall into that category. Well, not easily, but I think it could. Is this, well, I have to admit, I'm not waiting for this with Tim, maybe Diane asks the circumstances. I have to admit, I don't, I'm not familiar enough to be able to compare and contrast Diane's exercise. But there's a secondary question from Tristan there and how would you introduce it? So I've introduced it in a couple of different contexts with teams and even differently in more sort of one-to-one practice. But generally speaking, positioning it as, this seems like a really tricky problem. So often, for example, at a milestone retrospective, as opposed to a heartbeat retrospective, looking at tackling something quite, quite tricky. And that's just getting into a habit of just challenging some of our assumptions, looking at what we could be, what options are in front of us, what different thought processes might we benefit from adopting and inviting different perspectives from outside of the team and inside the team. It feels like something you might use in backlog refinement. What's the problem you're trying to solve? Yeah? Yeah? I could see that. Did anybody else come up with some interesting uses for it or any sort of inspiring next-wise actions from the breakout group discussions? I had a question if no one else has got anything to add to that point. And it's, does this, have you used this in, like, face-to-face as well as remote, or has it all been since you've been working remotely with people? No, I mean, so I've been doing something similar although not as formalized and sort of steeped in academic research, if you like, as this. I used to call it hot seat questioning. And we would do this in some of my advanced training classes but also with teams and coaching circles as well. It's a pretty quick way of providing some coaching supervision as well. So yeah, in person, absolutely. Sat round the table in a good old days. Does it work any differently in remote scenarios or is it... I mean, I can imagine not many advantage of doing it remotely, I suppose. It's just that you've got access potentially to more like-minded people to join together. Well, not just like-minded people as well. Diverse people. Having a completely similar group of like-minded people, you end up with potentially group thinking and cultural... The other advantage of the remote side of things is we had the chat window as well. So when we're doing this live in person, I would be sort of writing a few things down and maybe someone else would write them down. Maybe we capture them on a flip chart perhaps. But that's what didn't feel as fluid as it felt fluid in the chat window. And we had the export there and Tom could scroll up and down and he could see things. I felt that was a big advantage to doing it remotely. Personally. Yeah, it seemed to flow. It seemed to flow. You mean people who are not necessarily like-minded, but people who are game to do it. So yeah, diversity brilliant. But people who are like brought into it and... Yeah. I can see in this group you'd get a lot of that. Yeah. I'll just cover up too in the chat and then John's got his hand up. Ian said, I thought it would be better suited to a small mastermind group. I'm going to have to interpret what you mean by mastermind there. But for me, when I see mastermind, I think of expertise. And one of the challenges that we were set was that we were able to do things that were beyond our knowledge. So it was really to try and ask something that we didn't know the answer to. So actually having experts can lead to entrenched expertise. It can lead to blinkered questions and it's much easier to leak into advice. Can I just explain what I meant really there with mastermind group? Yeah. It was kind of a collaborative group where everyone's trying to get better. I was thinking of it in terms of triathlon and athletes sharing where they're not working together day to day. They're not going to worry about things being taken out of context or whatever. And somebody saying, I'm doing this training, the results are bad. And then the sort of question for what do you mean by bad and that sort of thing felt like it would work in that sort of group. If I sat down with my team at work, I'm not sure it would have the same impact. But maybe that's a reflection on either me or my team at work. Possible. I mean, just the fact that you're reflecting on that I think it's a really powerful thing. Thanks for the context. Evangelo, it would be interesting to see if what stuck with validation on the previous thought or inquiry and thought of that. Again, I think that, yeah, that is interesting. And I think that could well be something that I would like to reflect on, am I seeing new ideas? Am I seeing new insights from inquiry? Or am I just pulling up my own previous biases and my own previous thoughts that have been validated through the questions? Possible. I've got very little to gain from doing that in this group, but it absolutely could happen. I don't think I've ever measured that or not consciously. John? Yeah, it was a question which I think is similar to David's question about diversity. Have you found that particular cultures or particular backgrounds work better with this approach? Or have you not measured it? I haven't personally. But my groups have been generally, I say diverse, but I don't think I've ever run this with everybody from the same country before. But then they probably are to piggyback and bastardize John's point a little bit. They are possibly of a very similar mindset in there, more from our perspective, leaning perhaps. So not as diverse as that. But no, I mean, Donna's, this is something that's running, she runs a weekly session like this in Asia. And I know they run in lots of different countries around the world. But it seems to be something that is more akin to mindset than culture. Okay. Thank you. Cool. So shocker see three, one pattern using this inquiry as well, but it's, it's, it's got a lot of study and academia behind it, which is quite interesting. So you're showing for something. Yeah. Oh God. Go on. Thanks. The only question I was going to ask was if you were running this in a deliberate way. So if you, if you had a session where you got a group together because you knew there were problems, you could quite easily introduce it. You could spend some time introducing it. Everyone could be bought in. You can invite the people that you knew would participate. How would, how would you run this if on a more sporadic way? So if you're in a session, a problem arose and you thought, inquiry, that'd be a great tool to address this spur of the moment question. How would you, you couldn't do that in a, you couldn't like blend, you know, subliminally blend it in. She'd have to introduce it. So would you ever just, you know, introduce it in that way more subliminally, you know, deliberately as part of the session that you kind of not planned it to be in. Yeah. There's, there's a, I might be taking this word and fairly out of context, but the word subliminally as opposed to deliberately, I try and be deliberate in what I do as a coach. But that doesn't necessarily mean I planned for it. So I could still improvise. And it could be more formal or informal. So for example, some of the teams that I work with, you know what, this, this reminds me of this definition of a wicked problem. And I might just come up. This is, this is the definition of a wicked problem. Does this sound like a wicked problem? You say, yeah, Jesus Christ. It's a humdinger. Okay. Cool. I mean, let's, maybe we can't solve it. All right. But that could lead to a sense of hopelessness in this thing. I've seen a lot of teams that feel hopeless when they, they're faced with something they know they can't solve. It's too big. And part of my job as a coach is to help them find some forward progress. And if this is something really, really important, but they also know they can't solve it, then I might suggest something. And depending on the relationship we've got, they may trust me. It's okay. Jeff, maybe you've seen something before. I'll give you the benefit of it out. Hit me, whatever's going to happen. Or I might just, as you say, I don't want to get into a conversation. I might say, I don't need to answer this, but this question just popped into my mind. What I've seen really useful is actually this become a tool for the team and consciously pulled from their toolbox. It's not right now. This retrospective. Let's go for a bit of inquiry. When I, and so I've used this, this what so what now, what quite a lot over the years without realizing it was a whole lot of this adaptive action. So I would in the past, quite often give a team a little video clip or Ted talk or something in a retrospective and say, you know, let's just watch this for 15 minutes. Tell me what did you notice in that video? Tell me the bullet points of that video, the narrative. So what, how is that relevant to us as a team? Now what, is there anything we want to do with that? And having that multiple times, different people, different groups within the same retrospective or, that same kind of thing. It doesn't have to be labeled as inquiry or human systems dynamics, or it could just be a debrief template. Awesome. Yeah. Good, good, good tips. It just shows that it is possible to, you know, blend it into a session, you know, not, you know, see fairly seamlessly, but, but kind of deliberately as well. So Rick's inspired to give it a go next week. Let's know how you get on. Tom. Hello. How you doing? I'm not too bad. Thanks for the session. It's been, it's been good. It has reminded me of the, some of the stuff we did on the ACSM. I think the hot seat, as you called it. I remember that. And question I had, or observation then followed by a question is, I noticed when listening to the video that some of the questions were planted around perception. So you're, you're stating a problem. You're, you're saying this is a wicked problem. And one in particular was about how do you know they're not going to be engaged, you know, what, so, and what I was minded to think of was that whole thing around the difference between perception and facts, you know, if we were to bring it into a courtroom and say, okay, what's your defense? What's your, what's your, you know, prosecution say? Where are the facts that can actually evidence these things? And I've used, I've used that with teams in the past where not to sort of dismantle opinion or anything else, but just get them to think about the perceptions. So when they come along and say, oh, this just isn't working. We can say, okay, what's driving you to that conclusion? I just noticed that some of those open questions, whilst they were pitched differently, had a similar kind of take on them. Yeah. Yeah. It's good that you brought that up because it allows me to come back to the topic that I, one of the topics I've pointed out is really important, is that there's no real universal truth with a wicked problem. And we all have our own different perspectives and they all potentially are true. And so Tom had his perspective that he was seeing disengagement. Other members of the team may not see it as disengagement. And one of the, one of the next wise actions was for Tom to actually think, do you know what? I'm going to see if my assumption is real. And then they test it. Yeah. That's really quite powerful, right? Yeah. Without giving a solution, you've almost led them to that themselves. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.