Reflection – Mind Mapping with Visualization Embedded  Margarita Martinez    Challenge    I am a coaching psychologist who was tasked to identify the right people to form a military task  force at headquarters, design the team structure, help them design the best physical space for  them to operate in from a people perspective, do everything possible to nip systemic issues in  the bud to minimize burnout. As well, in our conversations, we discussed how we could  continuously improve on our design for future teams, allowing them to be flexible enough to  address their unique situations, level of intensity and immediacy.    What I had to address was the following: The team would be small. Having them located in the  same building as the rest of the staff at Headquarters was very distracting. The key decision- makers on the team had to be ‘present’, well-rested and well-supported. In past task force  teams, we realized the 15% of the team did 85% of the critical work; the rest of the team being  support systems and fact and information finders to support that core group. If any of the team  burned out, it would leave a gap in the information flow and seriously affect the work and short  time lines to move people on the field. We had to look at where they were physically located,  whether we have one team or multiple, smaller teams, keep in mind how resilient the team  members were (test for that) and how the information and decisions were disseminated.  Where the troops were located had a direct bearing on how quickly the decision had to be  made and implicated people’s lives. We had a very short time frame to get this team up and  running and make sure it was the best team design possible. Even though we had limited time,  didn’t mean we couldn’t constantly tweak how we did things and test approaches as the team  did their jobs.    Selection    The tool I decided to use was Mind Mapping (Video Week 3). I thought this would not only be  the best tool to capture all moving parts so to speak, but to create a common understanding of  the current reality, and address what was true in the moment as well as the multiple moving  parts that would change situationally. The Mind Mapping approach allowed for constant  tweaking and exploration. The basis of this tool that I used, also invited us to continuously live  in the questions. Embedded within this selection was a Visualization diagram (Video Week 1); a  tool I created (attached) to form a picture in their minds, one of movement and fluidity. We  wanted this to be an ongoing process. I call this the Dance of Change™ illustration.

Application    We identified a long hallway outside the team’s offices to create the map and covered it with  white board sheets. At intervals down the long hallway were white board markers where  people could stop, reflect on what was in front of them and add their insights and input. We  wanted the area to be a free flow area that wasn’t booked up with meetings and would be  available for addition and reflection. There was no right or wrong addition. Everyone’s input  (from the team, and their advisors) was invited.     What was critically important for us was to get everything possible out on that white board  wall, so we could see how complex this was and to have the ability to address certain situations  quickly and responsively. A great part of this was realizing we had to constantly ask the same  questions to tweak and strengthen the entire ‘system’. We started off with a map I created to  get the conversation and mapping started. We decided to meet a minimum of two to three  times a week for two weeks to discuss how the mapping process revealed priorities that had to  be addressed as well as ongoing team design that would benefit future task forces. By the end  of that period, the wall was covered with many moving parts to flush out the critical criteria of  what would make a strong, healthy and resilient team as well as their support systems. At that  point we convened to decide what priorities we would address to get moving and chose three  to test.    Insight    What occurred for me was that a linear approach would never work in this critical, fast-paced  environment. Using the Visualization illustration ensured that the What’s True piece (similar to  the What is) revealed what everyone knew to be true at that time. It was the status quo.

Looking at What’s Needed identified gaps and what we weren’t aware of or paying attention to.  The What’s Available determined what resources i.e. time, people, resources etc. were  available so we could act sooner than later which, in turn, changed the What’s True piece and  so on. Living in those questions and bouncing back and forth between them, allowed us all to  do more of the “’What If’ we approached things in ‘this way’ or ‘first?” conversation”. Keeping  us in the questions allowed for expansive conversation and be able to test various approaches  to find the best solution for this design criteria. It also eliminated the, “We can’t do this”  response and kept the conversation generative.    Approach    An alternate approach would be to condense the process into one day; booking a large space to  map out all moving parts, cluster the ones that were similar and look at what emerged in the  process. Once we would do this, identify the themes, look at what we could test in a team  design within a certain period. This would address immediacy and the short timeline we had  available to us. As it wasn’t a priority, we would address ongoing, future task forces separately.    With this option we would use Mind Mapping exclusively to shorten the process, the  consultation and reduce options so we could test earlier.    Insight 2    Using Design Thinking is a brilliant way to give everyone a voice. It also elevated levels of  engagement and accountability. In my opinion, one of the best parts of this approach is shifting  a solution-based conversation to one of curiosity and learning. Testing ideas helped other  emerge and so on.


Reflection – Mind Mapping with Visualization Embedded Margarita Martinez Challenge I am a coaching psychologist who was tasked to identify the right people to form a military task force at headquarters , design the team structure , help them design the best physical space for them to operate in from a people perspective , do everything possible to nip systemic issues in the bud to minimize burnout . As well , in our conversations , we discussed how we could continuously improve on our design for future teams , allowing them to be flexible enough to address their unique situations , level of intensity and immediacy . What I had to address was the following : The team would be small . Having them located in the same building as the rest of the staff at Headquarters was very distracting . The key decision- makers on the team had to be ‘ present ’ , well - rested and well - supported . In past task force teams , we realized the 15 % of the team did 85 % of the critical work ; the rest of the team being support systems and fact and information finders to support that core group . If any of the team burned out , it would leave a gap in the information flow and seriously affect the work and short time lines to move people on the field . We had to look at where they were physically located , whether we have one team or multiple , smaller teams , keep in mind how resilient the team members were ( test for that ) and how the information and decisions were disseminated . Where the troops were located had a direct bearing on how quickly the decision had to be made and implicated people ’s lives . We had a very short time frame to get this team up and running and make sure it was the best team design possible . Even though we had limited time , did n’t mean we could n’t constantly tweak how we did things and test approaches as the team did their jobs . Selection The tool I decided to use was Mind Mapping ( Video Week 3 ) . I thought this would not only be the best tool to capture all moving parts so to speak , but to create a common understanding of the current reality , and address what was true in the moment as well as the multiple moving parts that would change situationally . The Mind Mapping approach allowed for constant tweaking and exploration . The basis of this tool that I used , also invited us to continuously live in the questions . Embedded within this selection was a Visualization diagram ( Video Week 1 ) ; a tool I created ( attached ) to form a picture in their minds , one of movement and fluidity . We wanted this to be an ongoing process . I call this the Dance of Change ™ illustration . Application We identified a long hallway outside the team ’s offices to create the map and covered it with white board sheets . At intervals down the long hallway were white board markers where people could stop , reflect on what was in front of them and add their insights and input . We wanted the area to be a free flow area that was n’t booked up with meetings and would be available for addition and reflection . There was no right or wrong addition . Everyone ’s input ( from the team , and their advisors ) was invited . What was critically important for us was to get everything possible out on that white board wall , so we could see how complex this was and to have the ability to address certain situations quickly and responsively . A great part of this was realizing we had to constantly ask the same questions to tweak and strengthen the entire ‘ system ’ . We started off with a map I created to get the conversation and mapping started . We decided to meet a minimum of two to three times a week for two weeks to discuss how the mapping process revealed priorities that had to be addressed as well as ongoing team design that would benefit future task forces . By the end of that period , the wall was covered with many moving parts to flush out the critical criteria of what would make a strong , healthy and resilient team as well as their support systems . At that point we convened to decide what priorities we would address to get moving and chose three to test . Insight What occurred for me was that a linear approach would never work in this critical , fast - paced environment . Using the Visualization illustration ensured that the What ’s True piece ( similar to the What is ) revealed what everyone knew to be true at that time . It was the status quo . Looking at What ’s Needed identified gaps and what we were n’t aware of or paying attention to . The What ’s Available determined what resources i.e. time , people , resources etc . were available so we could act sooner than later which , in turn , changed the What ’s True piece and so on . Living in those questions and bouncing back and forth between them , allowed us all to do more of the “ ’ What If ’ we approached things in ‘ this way ’ or ‘ first ? ” conversation ” . Keeping us in the questions allowed for expansive conversation and be able to test various approaches to find the best solution for this design criteria . It also eliminated the , “ We ca n’t do this ” response and kept the conversation generative . Approach An alternate approach would be to condense the process into one day ; booking a large space to map out all moving parts , cluster the ones that were similar and look at what emerged in the process . Once we would do this , identify the themes , look at what we could test in a team design within a certain period . This would address immediacy and the short timeline we had available to us . As it was n’t a priority , we would address ongoing , future task forces separately . With this option we would use Mind Mapping exclusively to shorten the process , the consultation and reduce options so we could test earlier . Insight 2 Using Design Thinking is a brilliant way to give everyone a voice . It also elevated levels of engagement and accountability . In my opinion , one of the best parts of this approach is shifting a solution - based conversation to one of curiosity and learning . Testing ideas helped other emerge and so on .