HSD 7

In the review of our 2010 Human Systems Dynamics Certification course {ref. HSD 3}, F. and I continued our discussion about tools to deal with each type of change.

For static or dynamic change, traditional methods can be used to measure outcomes; e.g. statistical methods from quality control like histograms, distribution curves, etc. However, Project Management might work for static or dynamic change but not dynamical change because for this type of change we don't know what the interactions and interchanges between the agents are, and might be, as the project progresses.

Another difficulty we recognized comes up with stereotypical management activities such as the Board of Directors asking for the forecast of profit results for the next quarter without understanding that the results are actually due to dynamical change. This situation requires management understanding of dynamical change and comfort with the uncertainty of unknown influences and with imprecise results. In other words, as F. noted: a reduction in strategic planning replaced by strategic thinking.

The golden rule F. suggested is to observe each type of change without prejudice. In other words, treat each situation with the scientific method starting with observation and description to reach a hypothesis. Instead of using methods based on intuition, use a systematic approach. That would include being careful to understand the type of change in front of us using the questions we discussed last time. {ref. HSD 6}

We then began looking more deeply at dynamical change.

With open boundaries around the system, influencers are outside the system in question and are unknown. F. pondered the possibility of attempting to determine the “openness / closeness” of a system. Could we build a rating method that categorizes systems on a scale from “closed” to “open”? My concern is that even with such a rating there would be difficulties: a closed box in a sealed room is subject to external influences some of which are known, such as gravity, temperature, etc. but this situation is still subject to unknowns.

I applied this difficulty to planning a workshop. We can get all the details available about the participants, the venue, the circumstances, etc. - in short, think about all possibilities. However, there still will be surprises, and unknowns that affect the outcome. Therefore, understanding the dynamical nature of the situation leads to an approach which can use the surprising, emergent elements successfully.

We agreed that the approach used in an “Open Space Technology” workshop {Harrison Owen} comprehends that there will be unknowable influences on the participants, and the workshop as a whole. This knowledge allows the organizers and participants to use these influences to achieve emergent and unexpected results. Accordingly, the goal is not to seek a specific result but to use an approach that allows a variety of unanticipated results.

More to come.

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.

HSD 5

In the review of our 2010 Human Systems Dynamics Certification course {ref. HSD 3}, F. and I completed (for now) our discussion of the definition of a Complex Adaptive System. 

F. describes our review as: Continuing our travel in the past for a better future. (Which I think is cool, and reminded me of this TV show. Anyone remember the title?)

• F. questioned "system wide patterns being created by agents". Given that agents can create actions (or at least have the ability and freedom to act), some of these actions have strong connections or weak connections, and what are the parameters for this? As a real-life example: the VP of IT & VP of Operations debating and disagreeing about IT solutions for the business departments. Both VPs also have HR/Training managers with very different views. Their overall boss wants more synergy between them all. So we have emergent patterns that influence the agents (all 5 of them) which in turn influence the system, particularly with respect to the IT solutions chosen (in this example).
• Additionally, there are degrees of strength between the agents: levels of power, influence, authority, frequency of interaction, etc. Further, there may be invisible agents in the system who are not readily apparent. So as we analyze this system, we may wish to separate out the interactions between the combinations of agents and note the strength (influence) of these interactions.
• We then moved on to the question of Uncertainty. F. noted that patterns vary widely by geography and country; for example: for him, international flights leave more consistently on-time than local flights. There are differences in uncertainty according to culture, and situation.
• Our final note for this session was that some people still see organizations as mechanical and ordered and don't realize they are complex adaptive systems. Accordingly, they think they are in control when they are not, and don't see the possibility and probability of change coming.

More to come.

HSD 4

In the review of our 2010 Human Systems Dynamics Certification course {ref. last blog post}, F. and I paused at the following spots and commented or shared insights:

• the domain of Complexity Sciences is - well - complex! Or at the very least, very busy and full to the brim. F. counted 13 different fields of study on the provided list of Complexity Sciences, and many we agreed we couldn't explain: "nK Landscapes", "Autopoiesis", "Self-Organized Criticality", etc. They aren't on my lips as I wake up each day!
• nonetheless; now we have taken the course, we are experts on the field of Complex Adaptive Systems! 😁
• combining Complexity Sciences and Social Sciences (more familiarity here - augmented by Twitter and FussBook - LOL) we get Human Systems Dynamics as the intersection. So if you are alive and interacting with other humans you are in the HSD game.
• Simple Rules (example in the previous post) are important initial conditions for every productive behaviour toward a desired result. F. added the insight that to “Attend to the part, the whole and the greater whole” (4^th. rule in the list for the HSD Institute) one also needs to attend to oneself. This is like the maxim I've used in our teamwork sessions: that in an in-flight emergency, one needs to secure their oxygen mask first before trying to help others. So in any situation where help is required or to be given, self-care is important (health, wellness, adequate sleep, minimal stress, etc.). Self-care is also recognized as an important virtue in the teamwork protocols - the Core - from McCarthy Technologies as described in my blogs Team Tips. And even more alignment of best practice occurs with the Personal Commitments which are the introduction to the Core. These are also the Simple Rules which govern the best in team behaviours, including my favourite: “Don't do anything dumb on purpose.” (The only discrepancy between the two bodies of knowledge is that HSD recommends six rules or less - to keep it simple. The Core has a longer list of Commitments.)
• then we got to the definition of a Complex Adaptive System, which is a biggee! F. was struck by the words “freedom to act”: do the values of, and accepted behaviours in, an organization really allow freedom among the individual agents? For example; if one acts outside of the framework then they don't belong in that system, or can be invited to leave the system, and therefore are restrained. (F. finds more unpredictable behaviours in government than in private companies because they are not as focused on the company's goals). Groups often don't share a vision and so act randomly; however, when functioning more as team they know each other better and listen better and act more uniformly. Perhaps the possibility of “freedom to act” depends on using rules to create the environment for freedom - like a country's constitution. We concluded that rules of behaviour on teams leads to greater freedom and creativity; like agreeing in advance to allow unpredictability. My attention was on “in unpredictable ways” (like recent elections). My memory is that it is the unforeseen variety of possible outcomes that makes the system complex. Also, the difference between “complicated” (like a modern, working, internal combustion engine) and “complex” is that complicated things can be designed, built, re-assembled, whereas complex things are unknowable as a whole. We can't build democratic election results. (We do know how to complain!)

We paused at that point and agreed to continue the review at our next meeting.

More to come.

HSD 3 {HSD 1 revisited*}

A friend has been nibbling away at me over the last few years to review our HSD Certification course. (As I write the acronym it occurs to me that it sounds like a disease. 😜 )

HSD is far from a disease - it's a means to a cure. It stands for Human Systems Dynamics and provides a perspective on organizations and all the interactions and related ups and downs that occur when groups of two or more humans try to accomplish something.

You know: CHAOS. (The most recent elections in the U.S. and about Brexit might come to mind.)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone could provide some insight and practical suggestions to deal with this kind of mess? The mess being a complex system that has unforeseen and unintended consequences? Like... oh, LIFE in general?

Well, Glenda Eoyang and the HSD Institute can, and do!

And since my lovely and talented partner, Vickie Gray, and I have dealt with many messy organizations with complex problems throughout our consulting days, Human Systems Dynamics seemed very worth learning about. So we did, by taking the HSD Certification course from Glenda in 2010.

As well as being a rewarding, insightful, and revealing learning experience we got to work with a cohort of classmates with years of organizational experience and insight on the related problems and challenges they had tackled.

One of the kindred consultant spirits in the group was F., and it was his idea to review the course, share experiences and new learning, and discuss questions since six years has passed.

So F. has been poking at me and trying to set aside time in his busy practice for us to talk. Today was our first solid crack at opening our class binders and walking through the materials. 

I thought it would be useful to capture our thoughts and insights here as we go forward.

To set the stage I'm borrowing the Simple Rules that the Institute established for their course:

• Teach and learn in every action
• Search for the true and the useful
• Give and get value for value
• Attend to the part, the whole and the greater whole
• Engage in joyful practice
• Share the HSD story

Just the concept to even have Simple Rules to follow as part of the initial conditions for group behaviour was one of the first lessons. I'm sure we'll come back to this later.

Stay tuned for more!

{* My first blog post on HSD was in 2010.}

Team Tips – 13 {What's in a name?}

On April 21^st. Vickie Gray and I will conduct another Great Teams BootCamp. The details are here.

You'll notice right away we are calling this one a “Creating Time BootCamp”. Over the years since 2003 that we've attended, helped at, or held a Camp ourselves we've always debated with ourselves what we should call each session.

Jim & Michele McCarthy coined the original name of “BootCamp”. The common explanation for this choice is that over the week each attendee adopts new “software for their head” (taken from their book of the same name). So then everyone “boots new software” - using computer jargon. But this stuff isn't a computer Operating System. It's the commitments and protocols that make up the CoreProtocols that have emerged from teams being great. And adopting these best practices gives you a new way to operate in the world. Your own new mental operating system.

So if you're into software, or are in any tiny way computer literate, you get the idea.

But.... We've also had parents call us that wanted us to straighten out their teenagers. They hoped we were running a Marines style drill Bootcamp. And of course if you are leery of the military, or drill sergeants, or pushups in the rain, then the name BootCamp is not so exciting.

Then we got keen on “Results Camp” because the whole outcome of BootCamp is to generate a team that knows how to produce great results every time.

And I like “Great Teams Camp”. After all, the Core Protocols emerged from great teams in action and have been handed on to help others become a great team, and it's the team that produces the great results, and ...

Later, Vickie and I found out about Human Systems Dynamics, a whole discipline generated by the doctoral research of Glenda Eoyang. Glenda's certification course taught us about the importance of simple rules and tools. And bingo! We realized that the Core Protocols package was just that. The commitments were simple rules for teams to follow and the protocols were tools of behaviours for them to be great.

Now we had the name “Simple Rules and Tools Camps”.

Then we conducted a BootCamp where the team was astonished by the time-dilation effect. They were getting much more accomplished much faster than anticipated. That lead to Vickie's first book: Creating Time.

So as you are signing up for our next session above, you'll see it's a “Creating Time BootCamp”.

And when you get your manual once you've registered you'll see it's called the “BootCamp Manual”.

If this is all confusing, don't worry

Under the covers, it's still the same fabulous content. The week is your time to immerse yourself in the best understanding there is of what makes great team work. And you get to experience it to produce a great product. Yourself. Sweet!

A rose by any other name ...

Team Tips – 9 {Ramble on...}

It's a rainy day here, and I've pretty much caught up on work and administrivia, and since I've already fixed the hole where the rain gets in, my mind isn't kept from wandering...

This random? wandering includes the team challenges:

• maintaining momentum
• taking the Core Protocols literally
• mining the richness of the BootCamp learning
• why do bees buzz?

Maintaining momentum

As Vickie and I continue to work with groups that have attended the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams Immersion (aka BootCamp) inevitably individuals and teams find some aspect of the week long immersion into the delight of being useful – to themselves, and others – waning. Part of that might be running out of the adrenalin that typically is part of the experience. Sometimes it is physically demanding to stick at something. Perhaps we are experiencing enough personal change that our legacy behaviours and training start to push back. There can be disappointment that things didn't work as well on this part of the product as we remember it the last time. Or in the fun of trying many ideas we have lost track of a pattern for success – how we did it last time or how that felt. When we have reached the greener grass on the other side of the fence it can be difficult to remember how dry and withered the original side was.

Sometimes we just need to pause, take a collective deep breath, renew our support for each other, reconfirm our vision and alignments, and remember the wealth of possibility in front of us.

Taking the Core Protocols literally

If a particular Rule or Tool – Commitment or Protocol – is feeling like a burden, then we might be taking it too literally. Consider the problem of attempting to write down the paths to greatness. How I, or the next person, or the Core Protocols document, or the BootCamp Manual describe an experience will be highly variable. My view isn't automatically yours, your insights may not be mine, your words a different choice than in the document. If we are used to working with computing devices in black or white coding we have to remind ourselves that great teamwork is poetry, not bits and bytes. The algorithms of great team behaviour – the Protocols – are the result of years of refinement, including finding the best words. And if English isn't our first language, the difficulty is compounded. Take the example of “Will you ...” in Ask for Help. I've learned that this causes no end of confusion for translators. The intent isn't the future tense of the verb, but agreement to participate. Even the conditional “Would you” doesn't work.

The words are the best we have at the moment; the trick is to comprehend the intent and the spirit in the rules and tools, and keep practicing.

Mining the richness of the BootCamp learning

And if we digest each word in the Core, and read the BootCamp Manual many times, and think deeply about our week of immersion in the Simple Rules and Tools are we finished? I know for myself after 10 years of daily use and helping to instruct over 25 teams that I still learn something every time I read the words. And it is always fun to read some new book, a blog, a technique, a study that speaks to one single idea that is part of the thousands in the BootCamp experience as if that one alone was the answer. We live in a world looking for the seven habits, the four dashboard quadrants, the four agreements, the ten commandments, etc. Naturally authors and publishers are going to try to attract our attention to the silver bullets that make our lives wonderful. I just wonder how they would react to finding the wealth and depth and richness of BootCamp learning.

There is just so much there to explore, to try, and play with when one is dealing with the foundations of team communication and behaviour, the science of human systems dynamics.

Why do bees buzz?

Because they don't know the words. However, that doesn't stop them. I don't perceive that they analyze, I think they just get on with it. They do what works for them. When that flower doesn't work today they try another one. When a field or garden does provide pollen they repeat what works.

That's also what we have seen. Successful teams just get on with it. If this commitment or another helps, or this protocol or another adds value, then use it again. Or not. Try something else. Just get into the garden and smell the roses. And enjoy the honey.

Ramble on!

Team Tips – 2 {Where's the Boss?}

Assuming you've read the previous post – Team Tips - 1 – you know the definitions I'm using for “teams”, “boss”, etc. and can guess that I will be relying on the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams – the Core Protocols – in my answers.

Indeed, the underlying premise in all these answers is that the team is using the Simple Rules – the Core Commitments in the Core Protocols – and the Tools – the Protocols themselves, for their day to day operation. This is simply the smartest approach for any team that we have found.

So here is the “catch”. If what I am suggesting doesn't seem workable in your situation, then the organization needs to use the Core Commitments and Protocols (or something better).

Let's start with one of the most complicated situations Vickie and I have had to work on with a team, the question Jose R. asked:

“Does the boss belong to the team, or he just must work for it?” (I believe for the last part Jose meant “or does the team just work for the boss?”)

(Remember: “boss” as used here is defined in the prior post Team Tips - 1).

Boss

The simplest rule is NOT to have the boss be part of the team. The team works for the boss, and delivers the product or service the boss requires, in the timeframe the boss requires, with the quality the boss requires. And in large enough organizations the boss is on his or her own team with other bosses of other teams.

Team

In fact the teams working for a boss ARE THE PRODUCTS of the boss, and the teams across the organization are the products of the team of bosses. In the purest arrangement the bosses don't produce any final product or service for sale to their retail customers – their teams do.

And to get even more precise, the boss sets the initial conditions for the team – what must be produced and delivered by the team, and when, and within what constraints (resources, values, legislation, policies, etc.). The most experienced and mature teams can take responsibility for deciding what can be produced and delivered against a given deadline, or alternatively, what deadline they can meet for a given product requirement.

All of this works smoothly when there is a high level of trust and a high level of communication both ways between the team and the boss. And, of course, individual commitment and responsibility from each team member. (We'll explore trust and commitment more in future posts.) These elements are all comprehended and provided for in the Core Protocols.

But the situation gets trickier when the organization is smaller and, for example, the owners of the business are the bosses AND are also contributors to the team and its products.

In this special case the boss or bosses have to operate in two modes: explicitly as the boss, and explicitly as a team member. The modes have to be crystal clear at each moment in each transaction between all parties – that is why I emphasize “explicitly”.

In all cases, the boss's job is to have the team produce a result on time that is great in the opinion of the team and the boss. The boss does not have to be concerned with how that is done, what tools or methods are used, etc. as long as the initial conditions – the non-negotiable items – are met. If the result exceeds expectation or is finished early – fantastic. If there is any doubt that this will happen, the team should be reworking their methods, their focus on deadlines, their quality, etc., without expecting the boss to intervene or rescue them, unless they specifically ask the boss for help.

Similarly, in daily operation, the team relies on the merit of the best ideas from any team member at any time to proceed to producing the team result. The boss as a team member cannot have any special standing or influence, otherwise the other team members will eventually stand back and wait for the boss to propose all ideas and make all the decisions, and the huge opportunity for individual leadership, innovation, and energy is lost.

Accordingly, as the boss the business owner states the end result required or the deadline, then steps aside to let the team get on with it. As a team member, the owner acts as an equal with all the other team members to determine how best to produce a high quality result, or when the result will be completed as appropriate.

To be crystal clear about what mode the business owner is in – boss or team member – he or she may use a special name, put on a particular hat, etc. or simply say: “As the boss I need...” or “As a team member I propose...”

Needless to say, this special case can add a layer of extra effort and confusion, and so we recommend the simplest scenario for teams that are just getting accustomed to using the Core Protocols for team building and operation. But if there is no choice, we have a number of ways of accomplishing the special case.

If you already are knowledgeable about the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams – the Core Protocols – then you can see how this boss / team model works.

If not, then you will probably have many more questions on how this model can possibly work! So please send in your questions via the comments section below or @ReevesResults on Twitter.

Team Tips – 1 {Some challenges}

Since my partner, Vickie Gray, and I have been working with Jim and Michelle McCarthy on developing Great Teams over the last 8 or so years, it occurred to me to collect the things we have learned observing successful teams and create a series of blog posts.

These observations might be called Team Tips.

(They are actually recommendations for team members collected over the 15 years that the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams – the Core Protocols – have been gathered and used. But “Team Tips” is more catchy. :-) )

And then I thought: Why not ask my Twitter world for suggestions for posts – what are the challenges that people have about team work?

Here are some replies so far:

From Jose R.: 

“Can everybody work in teams?”
“Which is the best road to high performance teams?”
“Does the boss belong to the team, or he just must work for it?”
"How can you recover trust inside a team that has lost it?"

From Ben N.:

“How to select members for a great team?”

Nothing like starting off with some really important questions!

So while I am working on the answers to these questions (and setting aside all the other recommendations I have for the moment) it seems worthwhile to get some terminology straight so we are all clear on the words.

Here are some definitions we use:

“Team”: A team is a group of two or more people working on a common goal. Immediately that moves us beyond groups at work into any situation: sports obviously, community groups, church groups, families, couples, etc. There shouldn't be any circumstance where the team practices we use – the Core Protocols – won't work. Nor have we found culture, language, arbitrary social class rankings, etc. prohibitive.

“Boss”: A generic term covering all the organizational words for someone in authority over the team, e.g. manager, director, team lead, project manager, etc. The boss represents the power that sets one or all of the goal, resource budget, time deadline, etc. In Human Systems Dynamics terms the boss sets the “initial conditions”. We often refer to these items as those that are non-negotiable by the team. In a typical workplace the boss represents the owner / president / CEO who has the final decision making authority. In a family the boss is the combined and agreed decision making authority of the parents or couple.

“High performance teams”: In my corporate career I previously used this term very loosely as meaning any team operating with some awareness of their own performance and having some techniques to intentionally direct their own work. (And I thought it was a big deal to get that far.) Having since experienced what excellent teams can do I now use “high performing” to refer to teams that are committed (scary word!) to intentionally (not maybe) delivering great results (as considered by themselves and their boss) on time, every time. In other words, teams that consistently and continually use the Core Protocols (or better).

And finally, for now...

“Member”: Any one who considers them-self part of the team, and whom the team agrees is part of the team, not because of any assignment by organizational grouping or task, but because of their behaviour. And that behaviour includes their own commitment to intentionally great results from the team.

I'm sorry if you were hoping for quick and easy answers instead of this preamble. In Human Systems Dynamics (HSD) terms a team, as any group of people, is a complex adaptive system. That is, it is a system constantly adapting to a chaotic environment. Which is why self help books and blogs, weekend retreats, climbing ropes in the woods, facilitated intervention can help momentarily but typically doesn't last or grow. These things are not maintainable, repeatable, scalable for the chaotic, dynamic world we live and work in.

HSD also teaches us that simple rules and tools are important for people in complex adaptive systems. (Simple means a short list that is clear and concise – not necessarily easy).

That is why Vickie and I refer to the Core Protocols for team building and operation as the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams.

And why I'll be referring to the Core Protocols in the next posts as I answer your questions about teams.

To add your questions to the list add a comment below or tweet me @ReevesResults

Effort vs. Results on a Great Team

There's another interesting and important exchange underway in the Core Protocols Group forum (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheCoreProtocols). This one is about the relative merits of effort versus results.


As with all these discussions – in this forum or any other medium – a lot of the debate revolves around the meaning, and the implications, of the words used. For example, from Peter A.:

I think we're getting caught up on multiple interpretations of "effort". On the one hand effort refers to "the number of hours spent doing something", which is how it's being used in the results/effort ratio. On the other hand, I think the article is primarily using effort in the sense of "applied oneself diligently against a defined standard with realtime feedback" (i.e. Deliberate practice). While more is better in some sense here, the key point is that this kind of practice is a good thing vs. not practicing or ineffective practice.

and:

... there are multiple interpretations of what "results" mean. If results include the ability of the individual/team to produce more/better output in the future at less cost, the strategy/math for optimizing results/effort is different than if you only value output for the current time interval.

The “article” referred to above is The words that could unlock your child (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13128701) which has the punch line

This reveals a radical new approach to the way we engage with children - that we should praise effort, never talent; that we should teach kids to see challenges as learning opportunities rather than threats; and that we should emphasize how abilities can be transformed.

and even a comment left on behalf of Einstein!: 

This from Einstein:

"I know quite certainly that I myself have no special talent; curiosity, obsession and dogged endurance, combined with self-criticism, have brought me to my ideas."

Since my operating slogan is “It's not about effort – it's about results”, I can't avoid weighing in on this issue.


Let's set aside the unanswered questions from the article about how we encourage children versus adults, and whether or not we praise talent, or ability, or hard work, etc., and the words we choose in each situation, and with each personality – all complex adaptive systems!


My slogan is to make the point that in any enterprise, effort that doesn't finally produce a satisfactory result isn't truly effective and hence worthwhile. We can't get distracted by claims of hard work, and even true hard work, if it doesn't deliver. And please note I added the word “finally” to cover the obvious examples of practicing, failing, recovering, trying again which are all necessary efforts for most of us to build skills and competence to achieve a goal.


The real point is that effort all by itself with no achievement except fatigue is not a valuable  commodity. At least in the exercise gym fatigue is an indicator of potential muscle development. 


Nonetheless, when did you last go to the store to buy “effort”?

Well, Mr. Reeves, our company employees worked night and day to design, fabricate, and ship this product. We didn't actually get it operational, but we worked really hard at it. How many would you like?

Jeez, boss, I was here till midnight working on that analysis for you and I know you needed the answer for that important client sale this morning. Although I didn't get it done, I really worked hard at it.

You know I haven't taken a vacation in 3 years!

It is certainly NOT that effort isn't required. We don't go to the “Results Tree” and pick results off the low hanging branches. But if we praise effort without results, or in place of the required results, then we are not being smart. At the worst we are deluding ourselves that somehow hard work (and what is truly hard?) is an acceptable alternative to an actual achievement. (Scan all the news reporting from the United Nations, and governments in general, to see examples.)


And if we are in business, and only concentrating on effort, then there will definitely be a final result and that will be failure.

HSD 2.1

Luke's comment on HSD 2 is:

'So to take one example: what if there was no interaction with consultants and managers (from the Exchanges) - how much less successful would a BootCamp be?

Possibly related question: how do you know which Differences/Exchanges are most useful/relevant?”

Luke: Thanks for your comment and great questions!

My quick reaction is that every BootCamp is so different in our experience that one can't say what changes would have what result. The learning in BootCamp is so rich, that every group surprises us with it's creativity and response to their learning, and so the detail of every BootCamp result is different.

Nonetheless; we do follow the Instructor Protocols carefully because experience has shown us that this approach always leads to great results no matter what group of people participates. And we are aware of groups attempting to run their own second BootCamp without the consultants and managers. My understanding is that they found the session less satisfying and effective.

So what is missing without the Exchanges from the consultants and managers? Actually, most of the learning opportunity!

Without the Consultants, the Camp becomes an experience without expanded learning – a repetition of what one has already learned. An analogy would be learning a new language from a book or software program and talking to yourself or speaking it only with someone else would had learned the same way. Immersion in the language's country of origin just can't be beaten for the practice, gaining new vocabulary, formation of expressions and ideas, etc.

The Consultant role in BootCamp provides all the external guidance and experience to practice the Protocols, expand one's understanding of them, appreciate the nuances, gain insight, resolve any difficulties of understanding or execution. Those Exchanges are the “instruction”.

Without the Managers, the Camp lacks the drive toward a great product delivered on time. Each organization / enterprise exists to produce and provide a product or service. The Managers provide that direction and focus. The BootCamp team needs to experience and practice how to do that effectively, without drama and fog and pretence. The Exchanges with the Managers make the simulation “real” - how “Work” should work.

As to “which Differences/Exchanges are most useful/relevant?”: ALL of them! :-)

BootCamp provides a learning experience at the individual level, the team level, the Container of the Consultants and the team, the Container of the Managers and the team, the Container of the Consultants, Managers, and the the team, and often beyond that when family members are participating or involved remotely.

At any moment, in any instance, at every turn, a given Difference or Exchange can provide the subtle learning, or the life changing AHA! that makes the Camp meaningful and successful for a participant and the team as a whole.

In Human Systems Dynamics we talk about “the difference that makes a difference”. What makes BootCamp exciting for me is that any Difference or Exchange or Container can be that difference. One just needs to be open to the possibility.

Thanks again, Luke!

HSD 2

Last week I was talking about the Human Systems Dynamics course I had attended.

I'm actually still “attending” in that we are in between the class room sessions – the next week comes up soon – and I am supposed to be working on my assignment. The assignment is to, uh, er... What is the assignment? I'll have to look it up!

Anyway, I am sure that it involves continuing to practice the tools we started to learn and exercise.

For example:

Last time I was talking about some of the things that we learned and the intersection of that research with what we had experienced in our Teamwork BootCamps.

That is exciting because we always experience success with every group becoming a fully functional high performing team within a week, but we can't describe why to someone who hasn't experienced it.

(How does one describe falling in love to someone who hasn't?)

The Human Systems Dynamics (HSD) learning, and the research and experience that it is based on, helps us understand what we see occurring time and again, and provides insights as to what is going on in language that is useful. The terminology provides descriptors that make the dynamics of a group transforming into a true self organizing team more clear, and more explainable.

And that was an example of a delightfully simple tool: “What?, So what?, Now what?”

What?:

• “... things that we learned and the intersection of that research with what we had experienced in our Teamwork BootCamps.”

So what?:

• “... That is exciting... but we couldn't describe why.”

Now what?:

• “Human Systems Dynamics terminology provides descriptors that make the dynamics of a group transforming into a true self organizing team more clear, and more explainable.”

In this example, nothing has actually changed – the team performance statistics stand on their own – but now we have better language – a model – that helps us to talk about it.

Additionally, we are learning about the three necessary and sufficient variables to change a human system: the Container, the Differences, the Exchanges - another model to not only better understand, but to also choose effective courses of action.

In BootCamp, some of the Containers are:

• the group of people itself (the team to be),
• the week of immersion using the tools,
• the simulation of a work environment,
• the physical space the group is using, etc.

The Differences from other teamwork sessions include:

• the simulation which immerses one in the tools,
• the freedom from risk,
• the requirement to be responsible and accountable,
• the activities of building a team product,
• the deadline to ship or deliver that product by the end of the week

The Exchanges are:

• the sharing of one's emotional state at any time,
• the use of the rest of the Protocols to make decisions, resolve conflict, align oneself to improving a virtue, build shared vision, or choosing to pass on any of these and any activity one doesn't wish to participate in,
• the interaction with the simulation's consultants and the managers.

How do these observations help?

Human Systems Dynamics teaches us that these three categories are all we need to concern ourself with in our analysis. Further, when we wish to determine the “Now What?” we only have to alter the formulation of one of these at a time: change the Container, change the Differences, change the Exchanges. Clearly that still covers a lot of ground. And it provides manageable clarity from which to act.

Working from our list we can see that BootCamp is successful because it provides that simulation Container, and the Difference of individual safety, and the Exchanges of the Core Protocols. And so on, with all the possible combinations. (Which emphasizes how much in human relationships BootCamp covers.)

And most usefully, it provides clarity on how BootCamp is a completely different type of team work experience, and why it is consistently successful.

“And then a miracle occurs....”

HSD 1

So you know how you can come home from a course all pumped up with new learning, new insights, energy from the participants, new connections, etc., etc.?

That's me!

And then you have to deal with “reality” back home, and the questions of how to share the new learning with friends, associates, loved ones, etc., etc. and it all starts to slide downhill, leak away through your fingers?

That's NOT me!

When I came home from the certification course in Human System Dynamics last week, I had the joy of continuing to learn, gain insights, get energy because my sweetheart, and business partner, had attended with me (or more precisely, I with her, since it was her idea in the first place). And we have continued our great discussions about the intersection of the consulting / training work that we do with the concepts of HSD. [www.hsdinstitute.org]

Did I mention that she is also my business coach? [www.adaptivecoach.com]

So we have been rockin'! – bouncing ideas around, reviewing past experiences and work, playing with new “what if's” in the context of “patterns”, “containers”, “differences”, “exchanges”, etc., etc. [“patterns, containers, differences, exchanges” are all part of the HSD lexicon]

Yeah; I know – kids with new toys.

• AND, our work is our play (Work = Play)
• AND, we've got all these great case studies of previous and current consulting engagements we've shared
• AND, we're seeing connections expand exponentially between the areas in which we work: IT Service Management best practices, Teamwork best practices, business Coaching, and Leadership behaviours
• AND, the science of Human Systems Dynamics is explaining to us how

1. some best practice adoptions go well / don't go well / do both
2. the teamwork retreat “BootCamp” accomplishes so much in just a week [www.liveingreatness.com]
3. some organizations are open to new ideas & practices / some aren't / are both
4. and so on...

Just in case you are thinking that HSD is only for organizations, consultants, change agents, folks who like new mental toys, ... keep in mind that the first word is “Human” and that, hopefully, applies to all of us. :-)

More to come...