Workshop procedure

Instructions

One of the reasons for including the researcher as a facilitator for each workshop rather than making it a self-directed activity was to ensure that the instructions were followed. The introduction was refined as the study progressed to address observations in the field notes and feedback forms (e.g., ”not entirely clear to discuss the cards”) but the differences in reported clarity of the instructions were within rather than between groups. The workshop at company B understandably got the lowest score for clarity due to an insufficiently thought out change to use individual packs of A6 cards rather than a communal A4 set (see §6.6.4; this approach also reduced the interactivity of the procedure and was not used again). But across all four other workshops just one participant considered the instructions unclear. However there is evidently room for improvement to deliver instructions that are not just “reasonably clear” but “very clear” to everyone in the room. Pace may have been a factor here, with the researcher conscious of the generosity of companies

allowing time for the workshop and the evident curiosity of the participants to see what the cards on the table were all about. A written summary could also be considered so that participants have a reference if their attention drifts and to cater for people who may prefer written instructions to verbal ones.

The lack of clarity of purpose in the early versions of the instructions may have contributed to some participants’ thoughts about using the workshop again. A respondent from Company A reported in the online follow-up questionnaire that “it wasn’t 100% clear what the purpose was. My understanding was that it has been for research but the follow up questions imply it was for a benefit to the workplace”. The question about reuse makes sense only for the latter purpose, which may perhaps have contributed to the participant saying they would not recommend the workshop to others. Yet they reported that they would themselves consider using it again in future and described it as “good for inspiring discussions”. The relationship between these somewhat contradictory answers can only be speculated at, but nonetheless prompts reflection that the point of a process needs to be clear before asking participants about their intentions to repeat the process.

Emotional valence of quotation cards

Whether because the original participants more often expressed their opinions in terms of negatives, or simply because it produced the more pithy, eye-catching quotations when they did so, there were more broadly negative statements (e.g. “Anyone who thinks it’s ‘their’ code is missing the point“) on the cards than positive/neutral ones (e.g., “Automating’s beautiful”; “Identifiers are very, very important”). Workshop participants’ choices included both types about equally, but a few participants commented on negativity. One suggested that people could be invited to select two cards: one that they find negative and another that they find positive. Another participant reported that they chose “Automating’s beautiful” particularly because it was a positive one among many negatives.

Whether or not there are quotations to represent them, in theory most of the topics could be expressed in either positive or negative terms — although it is not clear whether the two sides are actually symmetrical, e.g., are bad behaviours generally more annoying than good behaviours are welcomed? The results of the card sorting task in the Exploratory Study’s interviews (§5.2) may suggest otherwise. From a set of cards balanced for positive and negative valence, more than twice as many positive ones were singled out as important than negative ones, even in a confidential one-to-one discussion where no one would infer personal criticism. An interviewee

in that study also spoke about the benefit of noting positives as well as negatives. The perceptions of negativity invite consideration of balancing the quotation cards for emotional valence just as the interview cards were (§4.3), or even selecting

only positively phrased quotations. The intention is, after all, to encourage a

constructive discussion, and positive wording might help to defuse the tension felt by one participant that it is “Quite hard sometimes to not say something negative at someone when trying to be anonymous!” As there is a negative flip side inherent in each positive card perhaps the implied criticism is still present in the implication that someone is not doing the positive thing on the card, but the wording is more constructive. Conversely a negatively phrased set, while also a possibility, seems likely to threaten the constructive nature of a discussion that is expressly designed to minimise feelings of personal criticism.

Resonance of quotation cards

The phrases on the quotation cards were intended to convey styles of behaviour that were familiar to participants. The presence of the topic on a card was in itself an invitation to talk about it, and representing it in the form of a quotation from peers in the industry was intended to offer an element of social proof (Cialdini, 1993), reassuring participants that the issue also matters to others and thus persuading

them to contribute their own experience. Precautions were taken (involving a

developer in finalising the choice of quotations and piloting the workshop; see §6.6.2) but there was an element of risk in taking more colourful natural speech rather than a more formal description to represent the topics. Would they convey enough information?

Together, the variety of cards selected during the workshops and the information given on feedback forms showed that with a few exceptions, the statements on the cards did indeed make sense. Only 6 of the 21 cards went unchosen throughout any workshop (see Appendix Q), of which 4 were identified as unclear in the feedback. But how well the cards conveyed familiar scenarios was best demonstrated by the response of participants upon being invited to look at the cards. It was not long before someone would catch sight of a card and swoop on it with some kind of exclamation, often identifying it with the name of a local issue. This reaction became so familiar that the researcher mentally named it “the Pounce”‘.

Group engagement

The relating of card topics to local issues that began with comments made while choosing cards continued within the discussion that ensued after everyone had chosen. Often participants began by addressing themselves to the researcher, but usually this turned quickly and naturally into a discussion among the participants as they talked about a familiar local issue. Having facilitated the discussion by providing the materials and starting the session, the researcher’s role was frequently that of an observer at a team meeting. Occasionally there was an intervention to invite a contribution from a quieter participant, a request for clarification, or a question about how an issue might be resolved but in essence it was a team, talking. As discussed in §7.5.1, the teams taking part were “performing” teams. As such it would seem unlikely that they need much facilitation in order to communicate openly and readily. Yet more than half of participants deemed the presence of an external facilitator “very helpful”. A comment from one participant may partly explain this: “We’re not thinking in these ways!”. The willingness to communicate openly and constructively was already there, but the workshop may have served as a catalyst to help them step back from their daily routine of solving the problem that stands in the way of the next step and instead pause and reflect more broadly and deeply.