HSD 6

In the review of our 2010 Human Systems Dynamics Certification course {ref. HSD 3}, F. and I continued our discussion about uncertainty and change.

F. described a recent commercial flight which was delayed for 2 hours; however, their connecting flight was also delayed so after a lot of uncertainty everything worked out. The extra efforts that anxious people went through to find alternatives turned out to be unnecessary. His hypothesis is that in certain conditions of “wellness” the majority of humans prefer to stay in the status quo and don't like change. Alternatively, if not happy, people will look for change.

We next discussed the different kinds of change: static change, dynamic change, dynamical change. It seems that “static” change is a contradiction in words. Accordingly, “stability” in the starting and ending states is an important element. F. feels that for him the word “transformation” is closer to dynamic change; however, for me it means static change since the final state is the new stable transformation. Words, words, words!

We agreed that people should have an emotional reaction to change. Generally, people are afraid of change, particularly dynamical change where the results can't be predicted, and the timing and flow is very uncertain. Or people may be happy with a change that promises something better for them, and a list of emotions felt during change should include hope. As a pilot, I experience joy and fear in the many changes during a flight, with fear being offset by good planning, good instruction, and practice. (The Landscape Diagram tool provides good insight into someone's comfort with change.)

We talked about questions to better understand types of change such as:

For static changes:

• what are the initial and final states of the change?
• what energy is needed for the change?
• risk: ignoring context leads to incorrect impact
• F. noted that a good examples of static change are to replace a tire on a car, moving from one house to another, a theatre performance in different venues - these are predictable, we have a good idea of energy required

For dynamic change:

• what are the initial conditions?
• what is the predictable flow?
• risk: identification of the border between the states
• Examples have more energy, more change occurs - many more pieces/elements/more agents, culture, interactions more varied, energy flowing out to the environment

For dynamical change:

• what is the energy/tension/stress in each level of the system?
• how are the agents connected & what is the strength of these connections?
• what interactions are occurring?
• risk: how you view the system; human desire to predict all results to help you understand life
• Examples have many outcomes possible depending upon the interaction of agents; e.g., political events in the middle east and in South America

We finished by exploring the idea of using some of these questions to identify each type of change before it happens.

More to come.

Team Tips - 6 {Ouch - that hurts!}

Here's a team challenge from Christophe T:

I noticed we perform better as a team once we shared our fears, hopes, prides, etc. How can we go vulnerable to our team ?

Contrary to popular belief, and certainly my corporate training, we can't leave our emotions out of the workplace. As human beings it is not possible, as hard as we might try. Nor should we. Both Spocks in the latest Star Trek movie (2009) validate that learning.

We ask, for example, for people to leave their egos at the door as they enter the boardroom meeting. What we truly want is to reduce as much as possible the drama associated with our personal agendas. Irrational behaviour driven by extreme emotion often leads to behaviour well described by the Drama Triangle. In the Drama Triangle the roles of Persecutor, Victim, and Rescuer are assumed by those involved in the drama often moving between people as the emotional energy escalates. And that is not productive.

Nor is the emotion attached to grasping for our personal agendas, persisting to have things our way. This easily happens when each individual involved has their own vision of success as opposed to a shared vision among the members of a team. If I am stuck with “My way, or the highway” then we have a dictatorship instead of collaboration.

In fact we could say that without a shared vision a group of people is not a team; certainly not according to our definition in Team Tips - 1. More precisely we can say that such a group might have a common objective but no shared concept of what that actually looks like: what is the picture of the future once that shared vision is achieved.

Accordingly, to attempt to leave emotion out of the equation doesn't work. And you may have guessed already that we have observed that emotion plays an important role in team behaviour. For example, how did Christophe make the observation above? He knows that individuals on Great Teams use the Check In protocol – from the simple tools – to share their emotional state with their team.

Why do the best teams do this? 

• first: simply in order to provide that information – to make explicit what is implicit in my attitude at that moment
• second: to give the team some insight into what is driving my behaviours and actions
• third: to remove the energy from a dramatic scene of possible accusations and rebuttals inherent in the Drama Triangle
• finally: to declare to the team that in spite of, or along with, or because of that emotional energy, I am still ready to adhere to the Core Commitments and so be fully engaged in the team's activities.

OK?      Are you kidding? !!

At least that is often our instinctive reaction to such a foolish suggestion. I'm not about to be vulnerable to others that way, nor vulnerable in any other way, we say. I'm not interested in having the sharks smell my blood and attack.

But, I'm not talking about swimming with Great Whites. I'm talking about working with your associates, your team, who are all sharing their “vulnerabilities” to some degree as the level of trust between members grows.

If one is courageous enough to share emotion, to open the kimono, to expose his or her thoughts and then does get attacked – obviously or subtly – then, of course, that ends that, and a “team” allowing attacks should be left behind to feed on someone else. Sooner or later they will eat themselves.

Being vulnerable on a Great Team means being open to sharing and receiving information of any type, being willing to listen and learn, being willing to risk being wrong, being willing to change.

And that kind of vulnerability comes from great strength and power.

Team Tips - 4 {Is this for me?}

Another challenge for teams comes from Jose R.:

“Can everybody work in teams?”

I am so very tempted to reply with a sarcastic answer, except that wouldn't be helpful, and this is a really tough challenge.

Some people I have observed over the years just don't seem suited to work with others at all. I leave it to psychologists to analyze and guess why. But most of us have encountered those who simply like to work independently or even have a difficult time making conversation with one other person, let alone a team.

In fact, some people, like myself, chose to work in fields like computer science to reduce the amount of time needed to deal with other humans, their emotional states, their foibles, etc., and maximize their time dealing with the pure, rational, logic of computing.

And some, like myself (again! ?), find themselves so disappointed and de-motivated working in organizational groups where there is no clear vision, objective, approach, sharing of ideas, focus on results, etc. that they can't function effectively. In those kinds of organizations I am un-employable (and have the severance packages to show for it.)

So if we view the challenge as “Can teams provide a work environment for everyone?” we can see why team building, team work, team success is difficult for lots of organizations and anyone who is stuck on those teams.

For those teams that can demonstrate success through the delivery of great results on time every time*, we can revert back to the original question and ask: “Can anyone at all become part of that team?”

And unless the product or service that your organization delivers to its customers can be built by one person only, never interacting with anyone else, we need to address this challenge.

What we have found in our work with teams using the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams* is that no, not everyone will want to be part of a given team's shared vision, and adopt the rules and tools to deliver great results. Some just aren't ready to step out of their comfort zone, give up their previously learned models and behaviours for mediocre results, accept the responsibility and accountability to be their best. This isn't a judgemental statement; it's just fact.

We all become ready to be our best in our own time, at our own pace. Unfortunately, in my opinion, some run out of time before they get to a decision.

What we have also found so far is that the best way to know if one IS ready to be part of a team is to attend the team building session known as BootCamp from McCarthy Technologies. There one is immersed in the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams and can discover for themselves if they are ready, and what it means to be part of a great team. As covered in the previous posts, this also allows the boss to recognize which people are creating which team, and for an existing team to determine their members.

Another choice is to join a great team for a probationary period to see if one is up to the challenge. An important team work practice is prototyping: building versions of the required product or service to be “perfected” (using the Perfection Game tool). Similarly, a probationary period for a new member is a use of prototyping.

Being part of a team isn't about group hugs or being in constant agreement with the rest of the team. Sometimes independent behaviour by a team member is the best choice for the team in a particular situation. Further, if the team's shared vision isn't shared by someone, then it is best that they leave the team – to possibly form their own team.

So if you are one of those extremely rare people who never needs to work with anyone else, you don't have to concern yourself with team work. Happily for the rest of us there are really excellent options.

Click here for your own copy of the Core Protocols – the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams.

To add your team challenges to the list please add a comment below or message me @ReevesResults on Twitter.

Leadership 13

You can't beat having your own coach, soul-mate, and historian right at your finger tips. And it's wonderful when she – Vickie Gray, www.adaptivecoach.com – throws a wrench into my half baked thinking about Servant-Leadership with one comment.

Like: I think servant-leadership is attempting to solve an issue with authority.

Ooops! Another solution for symptoms – not the cause?

Let's continue the investigation on Servant-Leadership then and see what we can find.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Greenleaf

"Larry Spears ( in the “Ten Characteristics of the Servant-Leader” ) distills Greenleaf’s (1977/2002) instrumental means into ten characteristics: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (pp. 3-6). It is important to note that these characteristics are not simply traits or skills possessed by the leader; a century of research has rejected what Bass and Stogdill (1990) referred to as an “approach [that] tended to treat personality variables in an atomistic fashion, suggesting that each trait acts singly to determine the effects of leadership” (p. 87).

"Rather, servant-leadership is an ethical perspective on leadership that identifies key moral behaviors that leaders must continuously demonstrate in order to make progress on Greenleaf’s (1977/2002) “best test.” The “best test,” which gives us the ethical ends for action, combined with Spears’ distillation of traits that identified the means, create a powerful framework for a review of the literature that furthers the conceptual framework for servant-leadership.

"That person is sharply different from one who is leader first... The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant first to make sure that other people's highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and the most difficult to administer, is this: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?"

As Vickie and I discussed the evolution of leadership thinking that got Greenleaf and Spears to the servant-leader concept and traits, the question became: What prompted all this?

If we take the idea at face value, it all seems quite nice, and perhaps too idealistic. I know I haven't encountered one of these animals personally. Mohandas Ghandi is the best candidate I can think of.

But if we consider the historical context of leaders, rulers, kings, princes, generals, etc. behaving in their own best interests, using their position to exercise power, and that leading to excesses of manipulation, subjugation, even slavery, the need for a kinder, gentler approach becomes clear.

Even in the lightest case of employees working for a domineering boss, the concept and traits of servant-leadership become appealing.

But not necessarily for everyone.

• Some are very content to be led, directed, told what to do.
  
• Some are looking for strong leadership in the form of an appealing vision – a picture of the future.
  
• Some want a clear course of action laid out in a mission statement.
  
• Some want the bounded responsibilities of specific tasks that don't include tactical or strategic thinking.
  
• Some want a well defined “day job” that lets them have a life of their own outside of work.
• Some don't want the boss asking them their opinion.

The point that Vickie and I got to was: In reaction to absolute power corrupting absolutely (or less disturbing versions of that), servant-leadership makes sense.

But the servant-leader traits listed should be part of any leaders behaviours because it simply just makes sense. They are the smart things to do. They get the best results.

And for more reasons than we might recognize on the surface.

From: http://www.greenleaf.org/whatissl/MargaretWheatley.html
Margaret Wheatley gave a talk on “The Work of the Servant Leader” at the 1999 conference. In her talk, which was published in Focus on Leadership, she said:

"There are many patterns, many beliefs, out there about leadership, about people, about motivation, about human development. The essential truth I’m discovering right now is that when we are together, more becomes possible. When we are together, joy is available. In the midst of a world that is insane, that will continue to surprise us with new outrages…in the midst of that future, the gift is each other. We have lived with a belief system that has not told us that. We have lived with a belief that has said, ‘We’re in it for ourselves. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there. Only the strong survive and you can’t trust anybody.’ That’s the belief that’s operating in most organizations if you scratch the surface. The belief that called you to be a servant-leader, I believe, is the belief of who we are as a species. We have need for each other. We have a desire for each other, and, more and more, I believe that if the real work is to stay together, then we are not only the best resource to move into this future—we are the only resource….We need to learn how to be together: that is the essential work of the servant-leader."

I like letting Margaret Wheatley have the last word.

Management 2

Q: So here we are again talking about “Management”, and you owe us an explanation about your use of quotation marks around such terms from last week.

A: You're right. My intent was to indicate a general use of the terms, covering a wide spectrum of meanings, until we have a chance in this discussion to be more precise.

Q: What's this concern with being precise?

A: It's more like an obsession about communication. Clear communication is tough enough when we speak the same language and have similar interests. It's even more challenging when we aren't careful about our choice of words and that leads to mis-understanding. So my goal is to be as precise as I can about words, critical ones at least, that are important to the point. Let's call them key words.

Q: And there isn't enough precision?

A: Generally no. For example: we talk about leading a group of people, supervising a group, managing a group, etc. often interchangeably. That's OK when it doesn't change the point of the message – the understanding. It's fine when we are being general and don't need to make a distinction.
But it hinders us when we are trying to be clear about differences, getting at specifics, or looking for improvement opportunities. In these instances, the words are important otherwise our resulting learning and actions are inappropriate, and we end up with a mess.

Q: Alright; I guess I am OK with that. Now, can we get on with it?

A: You're asking the questions. :)

Q: Fine. Let's jump into the deep end. We've all worked for “Managers” who seemed to be bozos who couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag and spent all their time playing office politics. What's that all about? What use are they?

A: Well, first of all, thanks for using quotation marks to make your question general and applicable to a large number of situations. Nevertheless, I am going to ask you for more precision: What is your problem with that situation?

Q: You can't be serious! Clearly that's a problem – they are incompetent.

A: Perhaps they are, but we don't have that data yet. Let me ask you a question: As someone working for that kind of Manager how did you do?

Q: Well, I was fine. I mean: I knew my job, I knew my objectives, I knew my boundaries, I knew how to get things done and I did them. But what if I was a new employee or new to the group, then what?

A: OK; then as far as you getting the right results there wasn't a problem, right? So, if I were to judge your Manager on that basis I would say he did the job required; i.e. your Manager had you produce the right results.

Q: Come on! The guy was a bozo and had nothing to do with me getting the results I did – I did everything for myself.

A: Then it sounds like you were the ideal employee and your Manager let you get on with being successful. And so the problem is...?

Q: OK. So, first you try to flatter me, and then you ignore the other part to my question, and now you are trying to make me look silly.

A: And perhaps you are getting just a tiny bit emotional. That's good; humans are supposed to be emotional even at work. If I may, I want to talk more about the data here first, and deal with the emotion later.

Q: No way! Now you are being condescending and I'm getting angry. And being emotional at work is unprofessional and unproductive, everyone knows that!!

A: Alright. I understand that you feel like I was trying to flatter you, and I sounded condescending. I did indeed bypass part of your concern relating to new employees. I'm sorry my approach is annoying you.
I absolutely agree that it is commonly accepted that emotions in the workplace are unprofessional. Would it be alright if I explained myself a little before we continue?

Q: Hmmm... I think I need a break.

A: We can do that; and reconvene next week?

Q: OK.