Collaborative Teaching Models

Early in my facilitation career, I made a big mistake. Spent hours crafting engaging activities and perfecting every little detail… Thinking that amazing learning design is what would make my workshops stand out and get me rehired. Some went great. Some bombed. You know the ones, sessions where: - One participant dominated the conversation. - People quietly disengaged, barely participating. - half the group visibly frustrated but not saying anything. I would push through, hoping things would course-correct. But by the end, it was a bit… meh. I knew my learning design was great so... What was I missing? Why the inconsistency between sessions? 💡I relied too much on implicit agreements. I realised that I either skipped or rushed the 'working agreements'. Treating it like a 'tick' box exercise. And it's here I needed to invest more time Other names for this: Contract, Culture or Design Alliance, etc... Now, I never start a session without setting a working agreement. And the longer I'm with the group, the longer I spend on it. 25 years of doing this. Here are my go-to Qs: 🔹 What would make this session a valuable use of your time? → This sets the north star. It ensures participants express their needs, not just my agenda. 🔹 What atmosphere do we want to create? → This sets the mood. Do they want an energising space? A reflective one? Let them decide. 🔹 What behaviours will support this? → This makes things concrete. It turns abstract hopes into tangible agreements. 🔹 How do we want to handle disagreement? → This makes it practical. Conflict isn’t the problem—how we navigate it is. ... The result? - More engaged participants. - Smoother facilitation. - Ultimately, a reputation as the go-to person for high-impact sessions. You probably already know this. But if things don't go smoothly in your session. Might be worth investing a bit more time at the start to prevent problems later on. Great facilitation doesn't just happen, It's intentional, and it's designed. ~~ ♻️ Share if this is a useful reminder ✍️ Have you ever used a working agreement in your workshops? What’s one question you always ask? Drop it in the comments!

Great decision-making is where efficiency meets inclusion. When I work with clients, I emphasize that true leadership goes beyond simply making decisions—it’s about making the right decisions in the right way. This requires a delicate balance between inclusion and efficiency, two forces that, when harmonized, create a powerful synergy. I’ve captured this in the matrix, which I use as a tool to help leaders reflect on their approach: 1️⃣ The Soloist This is a leader who operates in isolation, relying heavily on their own judgment. While this can sometimes lead to quick decisions, it often misses the mark because it lacks the richness of input that diverse perspectives provide. The Soloist may find themselves struggling with blind spots or overlooking critical factors that others might have caught. 2️⃣ The Commander Such leaders focus on efficiency, sometimes to the detriment of inclusion. This leader makes swift, decisive moves, which can be effective in certain situations but often leads to disengagement within the team. Without a sense of ownership or shared vision, the decisions of a Commander might falter in execution or lead to resistance. 3️⃣ The Consensus-Seeker It represents a leadership style that values inclusion, perhaps to the point of over-collaboration. While this approach ensures that all voices are heard, it can lead to decision paralysis, where the quest for consensus slows down the process and results in diluted outcomes. The challenge for the Consensus-Seeker is to find a way to be inclusive without sacrificing decisiveness. 4️⃣ The Collaborative Leader It is the gold standard—someone who excels at both including diverse perspectives and driving efficient, effective decisions. This leader knows that inclusion is not a box to be ticked, but a dynamic process that fuels creativity and innovation. By creating psychological safety and encouraging diverse viewpoints, the Collaborative Leader harnesses the full potential of their team, leading to decisions that are not only sound but also have strong buy-in and are well-executed. 🔎 Why does this matter? Because the success of a leader is not just measured by the decisions they make, but by HOW those decisions are made and implemented. A leader who can navigate the complex terrain of inclusion and efficiency will not only achieve better outcomes but will also cultivate a more engaged, innovative, and resilient team. 👉 👩💻 If you’re ready to explore how you can enhance your decision-making approach in your company and move towards a more inclusive and efficient leadership, let’s connect. Together, we can unlock the full potential of your leadership journey.

As the Head of People, Culture & Change, I often found myself asking one question: What makes a great leader? In the early days of my career, I thought the answer was a combination of IQ or EQ. But after years of rolling up my sleeves and working alongside leaders, I realized a missing component — Group Intelligence or a leader’s ability to navigate in complex ecosystems. Much like a beehive, groups are ecosystems where every part is interconnected. When leaders possess Group Intelligence, they understand and can intervene successfully in groups. The hallmarks of people with Group Intelligence are the ability to: 1. Detect Noise: Tune into the background “noise," identifying friction points and subtle signals of dysfunction. 2. Diagnose Dysfunctional Patterns: Pinpoint hidden agreements that are holding the group back. 3. See Roles and Relatedness Between Parts: Focus on the relatedness between the parts - not just on interpersonal relationships - to understand how each role fits into the bigger picture. 4. Design Successful Interventions: Craft targeted actions that address underlying causes, not just symptoms. 5. Optimise Group Functioning: Create conditions where different parts can work together effectively. 6. Enable Each Part of the System to Express Its Voice: Ensure everyone feels heard and valued. 7. Help Collective Decision-Making: Guide the group toward alignment, harnessing diverse perspectives. 8. Overcome Resistance: Examine what’s going on in the system and transform pushback into forward momentum. 9. Nudge Groups in the Right Direction: Design small, intentional interventions to guide the group toward its goals. 10. Reframe Roles: Redefine mental maps (individual and collective). 11. Rewire Dysfunctional Patterns: Replace old ways with more functional and effective ones. 12. Redesign How Groups Function: Rethink operating models to support lasting change. 13. Strengthen the Group: Build resilience, ensuring the team is ready for future challenges. The Lesson from Bees
Watching a hive in action reminds us that complexity doesn’t have to be chaotic. Bees don’t need rigid control; they thrive on connection, clarity, and adaptability. The same is true for human ecosystems. When leaders embrace Group Intelligence, their teams become more agile, productive, and prepared to thrive in the face of complexity. 
Leaders with Group Intelligence release the need to “control” the “chaos”—and focus instead on unlocking the collective power of the group. ❓How are you building Group Intelligence within your team? Share your thoughts below 👇 
If you want to dive deeper into how to develop Group Intelligence, check out my latest book The Hive Mind at Work, available on Amazon. 📖

Classroom management lays the foundation for a thriving learning environment. By building positive relationships, setting clear expectations, and maintaining consistent routines, teachers create structure, reduce disruptions, and foster student engagement. Proactive strategies help anticipate challenges and model emotional regulation, promoting mutual respect and accountability. With strong classroom management, educators reclaim time for meaningful instruction, and classrooms become spaces for growth, reflection, and joy. 🟥 Positive Relationships • In Action: Students are greeted by name, eye contact is intentional, and teachers model empathy and active listening. There’s space for student voice, whether through classroom jobs, reflection journals, or restorative conversations. • Impact: Trust flourishes. Students feel emotionally safe, which reduces anxiety and increases participation. A child who once hesitated to speak now volunteers to lead a group prayer or share a personal insight during a lesson. 🟧 Clear Expectations • In Action: Rules are co-created and posted visually, often with bilingual phrasing or symbolic anchors (e.g., “Speak Life,” “Honor Time”). Teachers revisit expectations regularly, using role-play or anchor charts to reinforce them. • Impact: Students internalize boundaries and begin to self-regulate. Transitions become smoother, and misbehavior is addressed with clarity rather than confusion. A student who once struggled with impulsivity now pauses and redirects themselves before acting. 🟩 Consistent Routines • In Action: Daily rituals like morning meetings, prayer circles, or exit tickets are predictable and purposeful. Visual schedules and timers support executive functioning, especially for neurodiverse learners. • Impact: Students thrive in the rhythm. They know what’s coming next, which frees up cognitive space for deeper learning. A student with attention challenges begins to anticipate tasks and complete them with growing independence. 🟦 Proactive Strategies • In Action: Teachers use proximity, nonverbal cues, and pre-corrections to guide behavior before issues arise. Lessons are differentiated, and seating arrangements are intentional to support collaboration and minimize conflict. • Impact: The classroom feels calm and responsive, not reactive. Students learn conflict resolution and emotional regulation by example. A student who used to shut down during group work now engages with peers confidently, knowing the environment is structured to support them. #TeachWithStructure #LeadWithRhythm

🛑📋 The “Parking Lot” Strategy: Keeping Your Lessons on Track 📋🛑 Ever had a student ask a brilliant but off-topic question that derails your whole lesson? Or multiple students wanting to share ideas when time is tight? That’s where the Parking Lot strategy comes in—a simple yet powerful tool to capture, acknowledge, and revisit important thoughts without losing lesson flow. 🚦 What is the Parking Lot? It’s a physical or digital space where students “park” their questions, ideas, or concerns that don’t fit into the immediate lesson but are worth exploring later. Think of it as a holding bay for curiosity. 📝 How to Set It Up in Your Class ✅ Step 1: Create the Space Physical: Use a whiteboard, sticky notes, or a poster titled “Parking Lot” in your classroom. Digital: Use tools like Padlet, Google Jamboard, or even a shared Google Doc for virtual classes. ✅ Step 2: Explain the Process Tell students: “If something pops into your head that’s not directly on topic, write it down and park it. We’ll come back to it later.” ✅ Step 3: Model It At first, demonstrate by “parking” one of your own thoughts to show students it’s okay to pause ideas. ✅ Step 4: Revisit the Parking Lot Dedicate 5–10 minutes at the end of class or week to address parked questions. Group similar questions to save time. 🌟 Benefits of the Parking Lot 🕒 Saves Time: Keeps the lesson focused and avoids going down rabbit holes. 🙌 Validates Students: Shows you value their curiosity and will return to it. 🧠 Encourages Reflection: Gives students time to think deeper about their ideas. 👩🏫 Better Classroom Management: Reduces interruptions while teaching. ⚠️ Common Challenges & Solutions 🔸 Challenge: Students forget about their parked ideas. ✔️ Solution: Assign a student as the “Parking Lot Monitor” to remind the class to revisit it. 🔸 Challenge: Not enough time to cover all questions later. ✔️ Solution: Use unanswered questions as homework or discussion prompts for the next lesson. 🔸 Challenge: Students misuse it for random or silly comments. ✔️ Solution: Set clear rules: “Only park ideas that are meaningful to our learning.” ✏️ Example in Action: In a science class, a student asks during a lesson on ecosystems: “What would happen if bees went extinct?” 🐝 You say: “That’s an amazing question! Let’s park it and come back after we finish today’s topic on food chains.” Later, you revisit and maybe even assign it as a mini research project for the class. 💡 Why Teachers Love It The Parking Lot isn’t just about managing time—it’s about creating a classroom culture where every question matters. Do you use the Parking Lot strategy already? Or would you try it in your next class? #TeachingStrategies #StudentEngagement #ClassroomManagement

Synthetic text extrusion machines such as ChatGPT are only a threat to adversarial pedagogies. It is hence surprising that we have not paid more attention to pedagogies that are instead based on forms of mutualism and consensus. Ones that would be less brittle in plagiarism hysterias. The Ungrading movement would be a good example or Students as Partners. In the introduction to their very useful new #openaccess book on co-design in higher education editors Mohammad Golam Jamil, Catherine O'Connor and Fiona Shelton give a great conceptual overview of different ways in which the staff student boundary are reimagined: “1. Students as Partners (SaP) is largely aligned to radical social justice roots (Cook-Sather, 2022; de Bie et al., 2021). On the contrary, the focus of co-creation is broader which is often co-creating value, in any form or volume, among the stakeholders. Therefore, while all SaP may be perceived as co-creation, not all co-creation is SaP. 2. Co-design mainly refers to the design phase of a product or process. The focus is on inventions through incorporating stakeholder’ views and actions (Vargas et al., 2022). Co-creation is broader than this as it can be a pre- or post- design stage, for example, any activities for identifying the need for a product, and contextualising its perceived outcomes. Therefore, similar to Students as Partners, all co-design is likely co-creation, but not all co-creation is co-design. 3. Co-production is very similar to the concept of co-design, and it is mainly oriented towards the building or construction of a product or process. The dominant part of the literature on co-production defines it as the collective construction of knowledge which is often generated at the end of the value chain or lifecycle of a product or process (Vargas et al., 2022). On the other hand, co-creation engages stakeholders at all phases of the process including initiation, design, implementation, and evaluation (Ansell & Torfing, 2021; Voorberg et al., 2015). 4. In Students as Change Agents, students are the key stakeholders and take the roles of leaders and decision makers in the change process (Kay et al., 2010). Compared to SaP, co-design, and co-creation; in SCA students enjoy more power and autonomy for intervening and making any targeted changes. However, this may place an unfair burden on them because of the passive or dependent role of other stakeholders including staff members. Co-creation is more inclusive in this aspect as it places responsibilities on all stakeholders, although staff members may drive student agency to enact any changes.” https://lnkd.in/eXw9Pgcj

It seems to me that Distributed Leadership is more essential than ever. "Distributed leadership" is all about the sharing of leadership roles throughout the team. It emphasizes teamwork and the idea that leadership can come from anyone in the group, not just the people at the top. So why is this important? Well...we KNOW that when people have the chance to lead, whether it's a meeting, a project, or a process, they feel more invested and valued. And as issues like employee disengagement and burnout become more common, it's more important than ever to understand that leadership can and should be shared across the team. PS.. I'm a believer we shouldn't need to use the prefix "distributed" at all...if leadership was understood in the right way. But traditional high-control approaches led to the terms "leader" and "leadership" being mashed together so now we are trying to undo the damage 🤷♀️ Here's how we can do that: 1️⃣ Start recognizing leadership as a behavior🔸️Anyone taking initiative, influencing others, solving problems, or improving something is leading. 2️⃣ Assign ownership, not just tasks. 🔸️Encourage different team members to lead on change and be visible in their efforts. 3️⃣ Shift some decisions to the team level 🔸️Invite input early, involve the people closest to the work, and encourage collaborative problem-solving rather than top-down solutions. 4️⃣Invest in Leadership Skills for Everyone 🔸️Equip everyone, not just managers, with training on communication, feedback, emotional intelligence, and problem-solving. 5️⃣ Recognize and Celebrate Leadership in Action 🔸️ Share stories internally of people who’ve led, improved or helped. Make leadership visible and contagious. 6️⃣ Ask, Don’t Always Tell 🔸️Build a habit of asking questions that spark ownership...questions like: “What do you think we should do?” “Would you like to take the lead on this?” “How would you improve this process?” What's your thoughts on distributed leadership? Leave your comments below 🙏

Organisational change is happening at a scale & pace we've rarely seen previously in the health & care sector. It is stirring up profound anxiety within teams. For leaders, understanding the powerful psychological undercurrents at play in driving group behaviour in times of change is as least as critical as managing the operational aspects of transition.  How do we do lead this change process with our teams in evidence-informed ways?  Heidi Pickett suggests following a process based on Bion’s group dynamic theory. Bion sets out 3 typical behaviours—dependency, fight-flight, & pairing – that block teams from moving forward. "Dependency" means over-reliance on leadership for answers, leaving team members passive & hesitant to act. "Fight-flight" manifests in blaming, conflict, or withdrawal from the challenge at hand. "Pairing" leads to an expectation that a “saviour” or magical solution will emerge to solve the group’s problems, neglecting participation & collaboration in the team.  Bion’s insights can help us move beyond managing tasks to working with meaning & emotion. This can significantly reduce group anxiety during organisational change. Here’s what leaders might do, based on Bion’s framework: •Don’t suppress anxiety but recognise the undercurrents of the group •Openly discuss the dynamics of the team & facilitate dialogue •Set clear goals, expectations & boundaries, reducing uncertainty fuelled anxiety •Build trust by communicating transparently •Encourage participation & ownership, encouraging people to take initiative •Engage the wider group in problem-solving & decision-making •Model emotional stability & help “hold” the team’s anxiety •Encourage group reflection & diverse perspectives & discourage “groupthink” An overview of Bion’s theory: https://lnkd.in/eiipZfxD By Psychology fanatic. Another superb graphic from Heidi Pickett.

When leadership becomes a practice rather than a position, something remarkable happens - your vision becomes bigger than yourself. When my sister Jaine Morris and I founded Coreo, we were inseparable - the "sister act" tackling Australia's misconception of waste and championing the circular economy. Our complementary skills and shared vision became our defining story. But sustainable businesses need sustainable leadership models. As Coreo grew, we deliberately evolved from that deep-shoulder-action "sister act" into something far more powerful–a distributed leadership model that harnesses the diverse talents, perspectives and expertise across our entire, beautiful team. Honestly, I want to work alongside leaders, not followers. And that means letting go of control, creating space for others to step up, and sometimes watching team members tackle challenges differently than I might have. At Coreo, nothing is an ‘Ash’ decision, it’s a Coreo decision. Instead of slowing us down, that methodology (aka general vibe) has seen us build the systems, establish the clear accountabilities, and develop a shared language around decision-making that means we move at high velocity. Hierarchies create blind spots, latent potential, and busy work detached from the real value creation we bring to clients.  I believe we're more resilient, more innovative, and more capable of scaling our impact. Most importantly, we're living our values and our dreams - creating a regenerative organisation that doesn't depend on just one or two people, so our ways of working can expand and contract to honour life stages. For founders considering how to scale their impact, I’m always happy to chat.

The lesson I take from so many dispersed teams I’ve worked with over the years is that great collaboration is not about shrinking the distance. It is about deepening the connection. Time zones, language barriers, and cultural nuances make working together across borders uniquely challenging. I see these dynamics regularly: smart, dedicated people who care deeply about their work but struggle to truly see and understand one another. One of the tools I often use in my work with global teams is the Harvard Business School case titled Greg James at Sun Microsystems. It tells the story of a manager leading a 45-person team spread across the U.S., France, India, and the UAE. When a major client system failed, the issue turned out not to be technical but human. Each location saw the problem differently. Misunderstandings built up across time zones. Tensions grew between teams that rarely met in person. What looked like a system failure was really a connection failure. What I find powerful about this story, and what I see mirrored in so many organizations today, is that the path forward is about rethinking how we create connection, trust, and fairness across distance. It is not where many leaders go naturally: new tools or tighter control. Here are three useful practices for dispersed teams to adopt. (1) Create shared context, not just shared goals. Misalignment often comes from not understanding how others work, not what they’re working on. Try brief “work tours,” where teams explain their daily realities and constraints. Context builds empathy, and empathy builds speed. (2) Build trust through reflection, not just reliability. Trust deepens when people feel seen and understood. After cross-site collaborations, ask: “What surprised you about how others see us?” That simple reflection can transform relationships. (3) Design fairness into the system. Uneven meeting times, visibility, or opportunities quickly erode respect. Rotate schedules, celebrate behind-the-scenes work, and make sure recognition travels across time zones. Fairness is a leadership design choice, not a nice-to-have. Distance will always be part of global work, but disconnection doesn’t have to be. When leaders intentionally design for shared understanding, reflected trust, and structural fairness, I've found, distributed teams flourish. #collaboration #global #learning #leadership #connection Case here: https://lnkd.in/eZfhxnGW