National School Reform Faculty

Ping Pong Protocol
Date: June 25 - July 14, 2003
Listserv: Coaches

Wednesday, June 25, 2003 9:18 PM
Hi All-
With so many of you out there doing great facilitation work this summer, this might be a good time to share a protocol we created in Vermont recently. During our NSRF Vermont Center of Activity meeting, we found ourselves needing a protocol that did not have a presenter at its core. We had a collective dilemma and wanted to handle it together with no differentiation of roles. Here's what we came up with. Enjoy it and let us know how you make it better.

The Ping Pong Protocol: A Consultancy for Groups
1. Pose the problem. This may be done in the form of a question that the group would like to explore together.

2. Writing. Everyone writes about the problem from their own point of view.

3. Share the reflections. Each person has the opportunity to explain their own approach to the problem from their writing. After each presentation, clarifying questions are asked of the writer, if necessary.

4. Probing questions. Each member of the group has an opportunity to ask a probing question of any other group member or members. It is important that each person in the group get the chance to respond to at least one probing question. This can continue until clarity is reached or as long as time allows.

5. Writing to synthesize what we've heard. This is an opportunity for each group member to make sense of what's been said.

6. Next steps conversation. Ideas for next steps toward addressing the problem are shared. It is helpful if participants explain how they came to each next step. The group determines what step(s) it will take.

7. Debrief.

This protocol was developed by the NSRF Vermont Center of Activity, May 2003
Edorah, VT

Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:28 PM
Some clarifying questions about the protocol...
Is the "group" the whole group of participants...or smaller groups within the larger group? If smaller groups are configured, how did you configure the smaller groups? Finally, was sharing among group participants and/or sharing of the whole? How was the data collected?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Chris

Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:50 AM
Thanks Edorah, I can think of a number of situations where this will be useful. Can you give us a sense of how much time you needed and the size of your group? I'm already trying to figure out the logistics of using it.
Thanks again,
Debbie, PA

Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:17 AM
I always so appreciate receiving new protocols to try out with our CFG or staff, and this one fits a need that we've often come up against--how to discuss, in a deliberate and structured way, an issue in which the whole group is invested. Are there other protocols anyone out there has used successfully when the issue belongs to all the protocol participants?

Also, I'd love to see this protocol and others that have come up on this listserve added to the Looking At Student Work website, www.lasw.org. I love this site, but have been rather aching for new additions to its protocol collection. Is anyone out there connected with that site?
Thanks!
Kirstin, OR

Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:13 PM
Hi Edorah...and everyone...
One question: Faith always reminded us that one of the requirements for a successful consultancy was that the person who brought the dilemma had to be ready to change her behavior in some way to resolve the dilemma, i.e., "change of leadership" or "more money" would not be sufficient resolutions to a dilemma question...

So, I'm wondering if you tackled this in your protocol-does the group need to commit to changing behavior in some way??
Hope everyone is well,
Steven, MA

Friday, June 27, 2003 9:31 AM
Hi Everyone - Thanks for the clarifying questions about the Ping Pong Protocol. When our group created the protocol, there were only 7 or 8 of us there to use it, so there was no need to break into smaller groups for any part of it. I've tried to address the larger group issue in this new version of the protocol.

You made some great points, so here's a new version of the protocol (attached and pasted below). I'm sure it can be improved further, so please let us know if you have additional thoughts.

Vermont Center of Activity colleagues, tell me if you think these changes seem to compromise our work in some way!

THE PING PONG PROTOCOL: A CONSULTANCY FOR GROUPS

The purpose of this protocol is to assist a group in having substantive discussion about an issue that all of its members collectively face. There is no presenter in this protocol, and no facilitator is needed if the group takes joint responsibility for following the protocol.

It is important that all members of the group enter into this protocol in the spirit of self-reflection and improvement. Everyone should be prepared to change their practice if the protocol reveals an opportunity for improvement on their part. The next steps determined at the end of the protocol might include actions for all or just some of the members to take, but at the outset everyone should engage in the protocol with a willingness to take personal steps to address the issue at hand.

1. Pose the problem. Someone in the group states the issue to be addressed. This may be done in the form of a question that the group would like to explore together. Check to see if there is agreement on the issue at hand; reframe as needed. (5 minutes)

2. Writing. Everyone writes about the problem from their own point of view. (10 minutes)
From this point on, if the group is larger than eight, smaller groups can be formed. Create groups that include diverse perspectives on the issue.

3. Share the reflections. Each person has the opportunity to explain their own approach to the problem from their writing, and they are written in bullet form on chart paper. After each presentation, clarifying questions are asked of the writer, if necessary. (15 minutes, depending on the size of the group. If there are multiple groups, add time for highlights from each group to be reported out.)

4. Probing questions. Each member of the group has an opportunity to ask a probing question of any other group member or members. It is important that each person in the group get the chance to respond to at least one probing question. This can continue until clarity is reached or as long as time allows. (20 minutes, depending on the size of the group)

5. Writing to synthesize what we've heard. This is an opportunity for each group member to make sense of what's been said. (10 minutes)

6. Next steps conversation. Ideas for next steps toward addressing the problem are shared and charted. It is helpful if participants explain how they came to each next step. The group determines what step(s) it will take. If there are multiple groups, combine them for this step. (20 minutes, depending on the size of the group)

7. Debrief. (5 minutes)

This protocol was developed by the NSRF Vermont Center of Activity, May 2003
Edorah, VT

Sunday, July 13, 2003 8:24 AM
HI,
This summer, my superintendent asked me to chair a committee to redesign the principals' evaluation format in our district. Until recent budget cuts, Area Assist. Superintendents were responsible for this. I used this protocol when the committee convened and we developed a plan that was submitted to the Supt. So far, the feedback at the district level has been positive in terms of a paradigm shift to the decentralized level and to include vertical articulation for feeder patterns. Since the group was small, we worked well and the feedback from the committee has been great! The plan will be presented at our August retreat with the Superintendent. If anyone would like to see the finished plan, just let me know and I'll send it out in the form of an attachment.

This protocol arrived just in the nick of time!
Barbara, SC

Sunday, July 13, 2003 2:39 PM
Hi Barb-
Thanks for this feedback about how you used the protocol. I'd love to hear other people's stories!
Edorah, VT

Monday, July 14, 2003 7:47 PM
We used the Ping Pong Protocol at our seminar in Great Barrington but had to abandon it after step two. But we learned some things that may help others.

1. The problem we worked on was too big. It was really a school change issue, not a CFG coaching issue or even a manageable school issue. It took us almost 2 hours to get through the sharing phase with 6 people and script it all. It became clear that it would take us most of a day to do the other steps and do them well. So I decided, with everyone's agreement, to abandon the protocol but make use of the goal of the protocol. So....

2. Once the problem was scripted from everyone's perspective, we switched to Covey's Realms of Influence and sorted out those areas of the problem that were within the influence of the people in the group. We used two center circles: In MY realm of influence, and in MY realm of influence with OTHERS who are in my realm of influence (CFG group etc,). The things that were in the circle that were clearly out of everyone's realm of influence got dropped. For those of you unfamiliar with this method of working on a problem, I think it is nearly explained above. You simply sort out what you have influence over and what you don't. You shift your energy away from what you can't change to what you can. If you work in the areas where you have influence you actually shrink the area where you don't. It's more complex than that, but that's it in a nutshell.

3. This group then took what they had sorted and did their action plan together and took it home as a beginning to get a handle on this pervasive and complex problem. It worked very well.

4. I think the Ping Pong Protocol would work really well on a problem that was not too complex.
Marylyn, ME