one (in this example, 50 to 60 percent). The resulting IEQ curve is deeply concave, which is typical of an organization wherethe majority of people use traditional structures for meetings and for working together.
Figure 3.5
IEQ Distribution for a Group That Uses Conventional Microstructures
IEQ of a Group Using Liberating Structures
Since Liberating Structures are easy to learn, it is simple for everybody to quickly boost his or her Engagement Expertise and bring individual IEQs above five. This makes it possible for a group of any size that chooses to use Liberating Structures routinely to flip their IEQ curve from concave to convex. In such an organization, Liberating Structures help everybody—senior leaders, managers, frontline people—to include and engage others effectively.
Figure 3.6 illustrates the IEQ for this kind of organization, where the vast majority have IEQ scores of five or above (in this example, about 88 percent) and only a small percentage have IEQ scores below five (in this example, about 12 percent). The resulting concave curve generates a large area under it and thus a high Group IEQ, in this example an IEQ of approximately eight.
With the information from individual and group IEQs, you know where you stand; you have a clear picture of what needs to be done to transform the way people collaborate, how they learn, and how they discover solutions together. As you implement changes, IEQs give you convenient metrics to track progress and identify where to focus your efforts. If people in your group start using Liberating Structures on a routine basis, you will be surprised how dramatically the group’s IEQ curve will flip. This is one of the reasons why we say Liberating Structures are a disruptive innovation: no one expects such surprising results and impact on what is a massive and widespread challenge.
Figure 3.6
IEQ Distribution for a Group That Uses Liberating Structures Routinely
Liberating Structures And Culture Change
Dr. Michael Gardam is the medical director for infection prevention and control at the University Health Network in Toronto. In 2009, he put together an eighteen-month research project to prevent the spread of superbugs in hospitals. Here is his description of what happened.
“This infection control project demonstrated that fundamental change in habits, values, and beliefs can emerge from including and unleashing everyone. Liberating Structures focused attention onroutine behaviors (e.g., hand washing, cleaning surfaces, transporting patients) and were widely employed in the study hospitals across Canada. Within a few months local solutions generated social proof, more diverse participation, and a virtuous cycle of feedback. The results were so persuasive that the project made it into popular local and national media. As the discoveries spread and generated tangible results, values and beliefs also shifted. Participants in the hospitals broke away from the values and beliefs that were, along with habits, holding them in place.”
“What took me by surprise was how this project fundamentally changed people’s lives and how they work.” Dr. Michael Gardam
Changing culture was not a formal objective of the Canadian infection-control project. Instead, culture changes emerged without anyone “pushing” for them. First, participants decided to change some routine behaviors and habits. Then their successful new routines moved them to reconsider some of their values and beliefs and to adopt new ones. This surprised both the project organizers and participants. In the words of Dr. Gardam: “What took me by surprise was how this project fundamentally changed people’s lives and how they work.”
Why is this a worthwhile observation? Three reasons:
One, culture is a big deal in organizations, either as an engine of progress or as a major source of problems or, quite often, both.
Two, entrenched cultures are very resistant to change.
Three, Liberating Structures offer