Intercultural Practice and Equity · Internal leadership

Leading a Reflective DSD Team

Respectful inquiry, learning from mistakes, feedback that travels uphill and shared accountability are conditions a leader sets, not a culture that arrives. Four lessons on the small, visible moves that set them, ending with a team learning agreement you draft with your team rather than for them.

40–45 minutes · 4 lessons · Voluntary learning

Start learning

Course outline

What your first response teaches the team
Respectful inquiry is not a mood that settles over a unit. It is a short list of conditions a supervisor sets in every meeting, usually without noticing.
10 minutes
Learning from a mistake without looking for someone to blame
A review that ends at a name makes the next problem arrive later and cost more. A review that ends at a condition changes something.
11 minutes
Feedback that has to travel uphill
What reaches a supervisor about her own decisions has already been edited. A route, a report-back and an honest measure are what make it accurate again.
11 minutes
Writing the agreement with your team
A team learning agreement turns four conditions — questions, mistakes, feedback and disagreement — into routines anyone can see, use, point at and change.
10 minutes

Share this course

What you’ll be able to do

Explore and practice

Name the conditions you already control in a recurring meeting, and change one so that raising a question costs less.
Write a short account of something that went wrong that explains the conditions behind it instead of ending at a person.
Build one route by which feedback about your own decisions reaches you without first passing through someone's estimate of what is safe to say.
Tell an unenforceable ground rule apart from an observable routine, and rewrite one.
Draft or rework a team learning agreement with your team, with access built in and a review point set before anyone leaves the room.

What you can take into your work

Four worked scenarios from internal division work — a notice redesign meeting, an amendment sent with the wrong effective date, a workload survey that reported success, and ground rules that no longer match how the team works — each with a recommended response and the reasoning behind it.
A knowledge check in every lesson with feedback that explains the usable answer.
Sorting practice that separates a condition the division owns from a decision someone made from a judgment about a person.
A team learning agreement drafted with the team and kept where the team can edit it, rather than in a supervisor's private file.

Change one condition in the next meeting you run and say out loud what you changed. Then take thirty minutes of a team meeting to draft or rework your team's learning agreement together, and set the review point before anyone leaves.

Read the introduction

Most of what a team believes about whether it is safe to raise something is learned from small moments that nobody planned: who gets asked first, how long a silence lasts before someone fills it, what happens to a question that arrives four minutes before the end, and whether a mistake produces a name or a fix. Those moments are conditions, and a supervisor sets them, usually without noticing. This module looks at four of them in turn — how a question is received, how a mistake is reviewed, how feedback travels uphill, and how a team writes down the way it wants to work — and ends with a team learning agreement you can draft with your team in about thirty minutes of one meeting.

Leading a reflective team

One page for any supervisor, manager or senior leader who runs a meeting, holds a supervision hour or signs off on a decision

A team tells you the truth at the price you have set for it.

Keep the four conditions in view while you run a meeting, review something that went wrong, ask for feedback, or write down how your team intends to work.

Respectful inquiry is a set of conditions, not a mood: the order of speaking, the length of a silence, the price of a late objection, what happens to a question, and what the notes record.
Your first response to an inconvenient question sets the price of the next one, and your team prices it accurately.
Blame ends an inquiry at a name and leaves the condition in place. Accountability names the change, the owner and the check.
A learning account has to survive being read by the person it is about, or you will not hear about the next problem early.
Feedback travels downhill on its own and uphill only by design. The report-back is what makes a second round possible.
An average hides whoever is carrying the uneven part of a change. Ask about the unevenness directly, and check what your measure is able to see.
Treating everyone identically is Minimization, not fairness. Acceptance begins when real differences in how people experience the same process are allowed back into the conversation.
Nobody has to disclose a diagnosis, a belief, a background or a private experience to be covered by a team agreement.

Change one condition in the next meeting you run, and take thirty minutes of a team meeting to draft or rework the agreement together with a review point set before anyone leaves.

The team learning agreement, in short

How a meeting opens and how materials arrive: two working days ahead as real text, captions on, first ten minutes in order, item owner last.
What happens when someone raises a concern: it stays in the room and gets one line in the notes with an owner and a date, or it opens the next agenda.
What happens after a mistake: four lines — what happened, what made it reasonable, what changes, who checks and when — read first by the person closest to it.
How feedback reaches the supervisor: one route that does not run through the supervisor, used at a set point, with a report-back inside two weeks.
How a decision is recorded and reopened: notes carry the decision, the disagreement and the open question; anyone may ask once to reopen it with something new.
Access, and what nobody has to ask for: provided by default, requested without explanation, and never conditional on disclosing anything private.
Who wrote it, who holds it, and when it is reviewed: drafted by the team, open to edit, and reviewed on a date already on the calendar.

Conditions to set on purpose

Ask people in order rather than waiting for volunteers, and speak last on any decision that is still open.
Let a silence run three seconds longer than is comfortable.
Give the first hard question of the meeting an owner and a date out loud, before moving on.
Send materials early as real text, not as images of text, and say who to tell if something does not work.
Put the disagreement and the open question in the notes, not only the decision.
Say what you changed about how the meeting runs and why, so the change is visible rather than private.

After something goes wrong

Ask what made this the reasonable thing to do with the tools, information and time available.
Reconstruct what the person knew and when, not what is obvious now.
Ask who else could have caught it and what stopped them; that is usually a condition too.
Write four lines and let the person closest to the work read them before anyone else.
Send conditions and owners upward when a director asks who; a name plus a reminder closes the matter and changes nothing.

Making feedback reach you

Build a route with a moment, a usable form, a named person who is not you, and a visible result.
Ask a narrow question: what has this change made harder, and for whom?
Check whether your measure can detect an uneven result before you trust a good one.
Report back within a set time: what you told me, what changed, what did not and why.
Treat an unusually quiet round as information about the route rather than as consent.
Make sure what paid advisors and partners tell you reaches an actual decision, and tell them what it changed.

Who this helps

Supervisors and managers, who set the conditions in every recurring meeting, supervision hour and review — this module goes deepest here, and it is a good place to start.
Executive and senior leaders, who decide whether a unit's learning account reaches a director as a name or as a condition, and whether a review point survives a busy quarter.
Policy, program and operations staff who lead a workgroup or a project team without a supervisory title.
Quality and performance staff, whose complaint and incident reviews depend entirely on people telling them things early.
Training, communications and learning-design staff, who are often the ones raising the late question in somebody else's meeting.
Data, research and evaluation staff, who can show a supervisor what an average is hiding.
Fiscal, contracts and grants staff, who see how a template, a deadline and a sign-off step shape the errors that follow.
Administrative and support staff, who see who gets interrupted, who never receives the agenda in time, and who absorbs the rework.

Related modules

Equitable policy and procedure governance
Inclusive workforce and team culture
Quality, complaints, and incident learning
Leading difficult dialogue
Sustaining voluntary learning

Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.

Sources and further reading

Minnesota Framework for Universal Multicultural Instructional Design
The design reference for this curriculum: multiple ways to engage, culturally responsive materials, and instruction that does not require anyone to disclose personal experience in order to take part.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National CLAS Standards
National standards for culturally and linguistically appropriate services, including the governance and leadership standards, the workforce standards, and the standards on continuous improvement, conflict and grievance resolution used throughout this module.
Minnesota Management and Budget, statewide human resources policies
The statewide policies that frame a Minnesota supervisor's responsibilities, including respectful workplace expectations, performance and feedback conversations, and where formal personnel matters belong.
Minnesota Department of Human Rights, Your rights
Minnesota Human Rights Act protections in employment and public services, and the boundary between team learning practice and a formal complaint of discrimination, harassment or retaliation.
Minnesota Council on Disability
Minnesota's advisory council on disability policy and access, including practical guidance for state agencies on accessible meetings, materials and notices — the basis for the access lines built into the agreement.
ADA.gov, Title II primer for state and local governments
U.S. Department of Justice explanation of what Title II requires of state and local government programs and meetings, including effective communication, which separates a legal obligation from the optional practice in this module.
plainlanguage.gov, Federal plain language guidelines
Practical guidance for writing an agreement, a notice or a question people can act on, including how to write a rule that a new colleague can follow without interpretation.
Minnesota Department of Human Services, content and writing guidelines
The department's own editorial guidance on first-read understanding, descriptive sentence-case headings and familiar terms, applied here to the wording of team agreements and meeting notes.

All research and sources across the program

Opening your page…

You can still use the navigation while it loads.

Leading a Reflective DSD Team

40–45 minutes · 4 lessons · Voluntary learning

Course outline

What your first response teaches the team

Respectful inquiry is not a mood that settles over a unit. It is a short list of conditions a supervisor sets in every meeting, usually without noticing.

10 minutes

Learning from a mistake without looking for someone to blame

A review that ends at a name makes the next problem arrive later and cost more. A review that ends at a condition changes something.

11 minutes

Feedback that has to travel uphill

What reaches a supervisor about her own decisions has already been edited. A route, a report-back and an honest measure are what make it accurate again.

11 minutes

Writing the agreement with your team

A team learning agreement turns four conditions — questions, mistakes, feedback and disagreement — into routines anyone can see, use, point at and change.

10 minutes

Sources and further reading

Minnesota Framework for Universal Multicultural Instructional Design

The design reference for this curriculum: multiple ways to engage, culturally responsive materials, and instruction that does not require anyone to disclose personal experience in order to take part.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National CLAS Standards

National standards for culturally and linguistically appropriate services, including the governance and leadership standards, the workforce standards, and the standards on continuous improvement, conflict and grievance resolution used throughout this module.

Minnesota Management and Budget, statewide human resources policies

The statewide policies that frame a Minnesota supervisor's responsibilities, including respectful workplace expectations, performance and feedback conversations, and where formal personnel matters belong.

Minnesota Department of Human Rights, Your rights

Minnesota Human Rights Act protections in employment and public services, and the boundary between team learning practice and a formal complaint of discrimination, harassment or retaliation.

Minnesota Council on Disability

Minnesota's advisory council on disability policy and access, including practical guidance for state agencies on accessible meetings, materials and notices — the basis for the access lines built into the agreement.

ADA.gov, Title II primer for state and local governments

U.S. Department of Justice explanation of what Title II requires of state and local government programs and meetings, including effective communication, which separates a legal obligation from the optional practice in this module.

plainlanguage.gov, Federal plain language guidelines

Practical guidance for writing an agreement, a notice or a question people can act on, including how to write a rule that a new colleague can follow without interpretation.

Minnesota Department of Human Services, content and writing guidelines

The department's own editorial guidance on first-read understanding, descriptive sentence-case headings and familiar terms, applied here to the wording of team agreements and meeting notes.