Karen suspected that these conflicting styles had a lot to do with personality differences. She had once taken a survey that showed she was a “Feeler,” and she was pretty sure that Jenny was a “Thinker.” Knowing this, though, didn’t change the frustration she felt when problems arose.

Because the challenges with Jenny seemed so minor, Karen thought they should be easy to fix. It was obvious that Jenny shared Karen’s passion for their work. Plus, Jenny had brilliant ideas that often led to breakthroughs on tough issues. Karen only wished that Jenny weren’t so cold and distant.

Although they may seem trivial, the personal differences that Karen experienced in her relationship with Jenny had a significant impact on their working relationship. Fortunately, while these opposing styles may generate conflict, they also offer great richness in tackling complex issues. But in order to get out of counterproductive patterns of interaction that have created problems in the past, Karen needs a new way of viewing differences: one that enables her to live with the tensions differences generate, create a rich vision of what she wants to create, and be flexible in the pursuit of her vision. Otherwise, Karen’s current way of thinking will continue to limit her ability to respond constructively to Jenny and others.

No doubt you, too, are aware of differences between you and others in your organization. How can you deal with these differences in productive ways? And how can you use them to build your own self-knowledge and interpersonal skills? One promising approach stems from a school of thought known as “Dilemma Theory.”

A dilemma is a choice between two options, both of which are attractive but appear to be mutually exclusive: an “either/or” scenario.

Dilemma Theory

Differences have always been a basis for learning. When people travel, they find themselves stimulated by the cultural differences they encounter, often returning home with new understanding and appreciation of themselves and their communities. But differences can also serve as the basis for intractable conflict and struggle. When we encounter someone whose worldview is diametrically opposed to our own, we often fall into an “us” versus “them” and “good” versus “bad” dynamic.

Dilemma Theory, based on the work of researchers Charles Hampden-Turner and Fons Trompenaars, seeks to help us overcome these barriers and learn from differences. Hampden-Turner summarizes the philosophy as follows: “We can never grow to become great business leaders until we actively strive to embrace the behaviors and attitudes that feel most uncomfortable to us. The most effective management practices are those that gently force engineers, managers, and employees to embrace the unthinkable.” Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars focus primarily on cultural differences, but the concepts they developed can help to explain the dynamics associated with any kind of differences.

As they point out, a dilemma is a choice between two options, both of which are attractive but appear to be mutually exclusive: an “either/or” scenario. You face dilemmas every day: whether to work on a project alone or with others; whether to give attention to details or focus on the “big picture”; whether to confront someone’s inappropriate behavior or pass over it; whether to stay with what you know or try something new.

While such dilemmas may seem straightforward, they are rich with dynamic complexity. The dynamism stems not from the simple choice that a dilemma presents, but from the mechanisms that people and societies develop for making such decisions. How we become skilled at handling dilemmas has an enormous impact on the outcome. In this context, being skilled means competently performing a task without needing to consciously focus on it. When we repeatedly do something, we eventually reach the point when we no longer need to call to mind the steps it requires; we just do them. I have become skilled in the use of computer keyboards, so as I type, I do not have to deliberately hunt for the right keys to make words. I think of the word I want and my fingers make it happen without any apparent thought on my part.

Just as we become skilled at physical tasks such as typing, we gain mastery in handling dilemmas. If we repeatedly resolve dilemmas by choosing one option over the other, the option we choose becomes an unconscious preference. Over time, we stop being aware that we are making a choice — we simply assume it is the best course of action. These deeply internalized preferences become values that shape the decisions we make and the actions we take.

Many people believe that their way of dealing with something is obviously superior, even when they encounter others who routinely make the opposite choice. In this situation, it is easy to characterize different choices as absurd or based on ignorance. For Karen, the rightness of working collegially and expressing her emotions was something she felt from deep within and found hard to put into words. Little wonder she found it perplexing when Jenny worked in a contradictory way.

Personality differences also play an important role in the formation of values. We are each born with innate characteristics that shape our preferences and interests (Sandra Seagal and David Horne’s work on Human Dynamics is one framework for understanding variations). So both nature and nurture give rise to the differences we encounter.

Universal Dilemmas

Just as people develop a set of values based on the cumulative effect of the choices they make, so do communities. All communities encounter dilemmas, and some dilemmas are universal. Universal dilemmas include:

• Whether (a) rules should apply to everyone or (b) exceptions should be made depending on who is involved.
• Whether status should be awarded (a) on the basis of one’s position in the community or (b) on the basis of what one has achieved.
• Whether (a) the needs of the community should outweigh the rights of individual members or (b) vice versa.

While these dilemmas are universal, the ways in which communities resolve them are not. Each society will develop its own pattern of values, perhaps putting (a) ahead of (b) with one dilemma but (b) ahead of (a) with another.

What determines which values develop in a particular community? It depends on the conditions that exist when the community first encounters a dilemma. All manner of variables have an effect. The personality dynamics of influential community leaders — the “core group,” to use the term coined by Art Kleiner — play a key role. The history of the community and its present needs all shape how it resolves a dilemma. When a community repeatedly resolves an issue by giving priority to one option, what was once a conscious choice becomes an unconsciously held value.

We generally don’t examine taken-for-granted ways of doing things until we encounter someone who does things differently.

Values are self-perpetuating. For example, if we value achievement — rewarding people for what they accomplish rather than who they are — we are naturally interested in how we can measure it. Having established a way of measuring achievement, we start to do so. In this way, we create an infrastructure to support a value that started off as a preference for one way of acting over another. As we use the infrastructure, we reinforce the value and strengthen our preference for it.

On an individual level, when children grow up, they take for granted that the way their family operates is the norm — how they celebrate holidays, deal with money, resolve conflicts, and so on. In the same way, people do not usually question the values of the community in which they live. We generally don’t examine taken-for-granted ways of doing things until we encounter someone who does things differently, whether at an individual or group level.

Dynamics of Difference

What happens when people with opposite values — such as Jenny and Karen — interact? The outcome is typically not what we would hope. Because a dilemma involves options, both of which are advantageous, the values represented in the dilemma are also complementary. The more one of the values is expressed, the greater the need for the other becomes. Jenny and Karen have the potential to balance one another, making up for each other’s shortcomings and supporting each other’s strengths, and we might hope that they would find ways to capitalize on their complementary skills. But two phenomena often prevent that from happening: skilled incompetence and schismogenesis.

Skilled Incompetence. The reason a dilemma is challenging is that both options are attractive: Each provides real — though different — advantages. In our story, Karen benefits from being expressive, and Jenny benefits from keeping her emotions in check. But when one option becomes an unconscious preference, it is at the expense of the other. So the more that Karen pursues the value she derives from acting expressively, the more she misses out on the advantages of objectivity.

While Karen values subjectivity, she isn’t blind. She can see that Jenny benefits from her objectivity. She may think, “I wish I was more like Jenny,” and decide to change in that direction. But despite her determination, Karen may still operate off an unconscious preference for subjectivity. For this reason, she may say one thing while at the same time do the opposite and not be aware of the discrepancy. Chris Argyris coined the term “skilled incompetence” to describe the mismatch between what people say and what they do.

This pattern of behavior can also happen at an organizational level. Companies may publish lists of values, but these often express qualities that people think are needed rather than ones that the organization actually possesses. In all probability, a quality will make it onto the list of “corporate values” because it is something the organization does not value!

Schismogenesis. Another dynamic that occurs when opposites interact is what anthropologist Gregory Bateson termed “schismogenesis”: the splitting apart of complementary values. Schismogenesis happens when an initially small difference gets progressively bigger. Imagine that Karen has come up with a breakthrough on a project that she wants to share with Jenny. She goes to Jenny’s office and excitedly blurts out that she has news. Jenny is overwhelmed by Karen’s energy, thinks Karen should calm down, and tries to encourage her to do so by lowering her own voice and speaking slowly. Karen thinks Jenny doesn’t understand the importance of the message, so she ramps up her level of enthusiasm. Jenny gets quieter and calmer. Karen gets louder and more excited. What started off as a small difference has become enormous through the course of the interaction.

Something else has happened, too. Karen and Jenny have become polarized, with a distorted view of what their values represent. How so? When seen through the lens of Dilemma Theory, a value is a preference for acting one way rather than another. This difference also depends on who else is involved. Karen values expressiveness because this term describes the difference she sees between herself and others she interacts with. But in many communities throughout the world, Karen would be viewed as the least expressive person.

Nevertheless, Karen has come to consider expressiveness as something that defines who she is. She doesn’t think, “I have a stronger preference for expressing and acting on my feelings than Jenny.” Rather, she says to herself, “I am a Feeler.” Thinking of herself in this way makes a tremendous difference to the repertoire of actions that Karen allows herself to use. Viewing her own and Jenny’s values as permanent characteristics, Karen feels compelled to act in harmony with her values. She shuns the alternative way of acting.

How will this pattern of behavior affect Karen when it comes to learning and personal mastery? Our values influence what we are ready to learn. Karen is attracted to forms of learning that support her preference for emotional expressiveness. She may reject opportunities to learn what she does not value, such as the use of rigorous analytical decision-making tools. She is not naturally interested, and it just feels wrong somehow.

By bounding the scope of her inquiry, Karen limits her capacity to create what is really important to her. Her values push her to learn some things and neglect others. While she may be aware of her need to gain competency in those other areas, what she sees as personal characteristics play a crucial role in shaping how much effort she invests in her learning efforts. This process represents a “Success to the Successful” archetypal structure, in which Karen reinforces the values she already has and neglects areas in which she could benefit from growth (see “From Preference to Value”).

Reconciliation

To reap the benefits from diversity, Dilemma Theory encourages people to look for ways of reconciling the conflicting values they encounter. While the dynamics of culture and personality often lead people to value one option and neglect the other, a dilemma is a dilemma because both of the options are important and needed. Reconciliation involves understanding the circularity of the relationship between values. The two options involved in a dilemma — the potential values — are complementary. The more we do one, the more we need to do the other. We could diagram the relationship as shown in “Complementary Values”.

Schismogenesis is a process that disrupts the connection between the two values. Reconciliation does the opposite; it strengthens the connection. Rather than encouraging one or other of the values to be expressed, it encourages the flow of movement between the values so either or both can be expressed, depending on what the situation demands.

COMPLEMENTARY VALUES

The two options involved in a dilemma the potential values—are complementary. The more we do one, the more we need to do the other. Reconciliation involves understanding the circularity of the relationship between values.

Imagine what would happen to the relationship between Karen and Jenny if they reframed their values in ways that still indicated their individual preferences, but showed an appreciation for both parts of the dilemma. Karen might move from thinking “I’m a Feeler” to “Before making a decision, I like to test ideas by experiencing how they affect my emotions.” By reframing her image of herself in this way, Karen recognizes that if she exercises her capacity for feeling, she can improve the quality of her own and others’ thinking. And improving the quality of thinking has a positive impact on the emotional environment in which she works.

Jenny might move from the stance “I’m a Thinker” to “I prefer to articulate thoughts in ways that enable people to examine and express their feelings and opinions.” Jenny recognizes that her capacity for thinking enables her to invite others to express their feelings in productive ways. Doing so stimulates and challenges her to increase the quality of her thinking.

In this way, while Karen and Jenny retain their own preferences, they can design a way of working together that they both find satisfying. Imagine we were to watch them at work. While they were getting used to this new way of framing their values, we might see rather deliberate shifts between thinking and feeling. They might verbalize the need to move from one mode of operation to another:, “Perhaps we should generate some new thoughts based on what we’ve heard” or “Let’s take some time to check out our feelings about what’s been said.”

Over time, Jenny and Karen would likely become more skilled at managing the movement between thoughts and emotions. We would observe a fluidity in their work together, with each bringing feelings and thoughts into play as required. When they have truly reconciled the dilemma, we would be hard pressed to classify aspects of their work as expressions of one or other of the original values.

Many of the challenges we face are socially complex: The people affected are diverse and the array of values is wide. Each situation might involve several pairs of opposing values. As we learn to honor all the values pertinent to a dilemma, we increase our capacity for acting in ways that are sustainable within the system. But what behaviors help us to reconcile values?

Changing Patterns

A number of techniques can give you insight into the dynamics of the differences you encounter. These can prompt you to look at conflict in new ways.

Be Aware. A key to achieving reconciliation is awareness of one’s own thinking and behavior. Schismogenesis can seem normal in an environment in which people are rewarded for living at the extreme of one value. A community may reward those members who are “ideologically pure,” focused on one value to the exclusion of all others. But personal, organizational, and social health require the reconciliation of a range of values. If you concentrate your effort around just one value, you are likely going to mobilize people with other values to become more extreme in their opposition to you. Schismogenesis is fueled by unconscious actions; becoming aware of your actions is the basis for reconciliation.

Look for the Whole. People become polarized when they can see only the good in what they value and only the evil in the values of those who oppose them. As we have discussed, values arise because of dilemmas, and in a dilemma, both options offer something attractive. It follows that there will also be a downside to any value. If a person pursues a value in a single-minded way, then he or she is neglecting a complementary value, and undesirable consequences will likely follow. Practice seeing the whole picture by noticing the gains to be made by pursuing each value represented in a dilemma. Then list the disadvantages of each: what will be lost if you pursue each of the values to an extreme.

SEQUENCE OF ACTIONS

This causal loop diagram shows how you might move through a sequence of actions that give priority to one value and then another, and so on. In this case, reflection improves our actions, and actions provide new data for reflection.

Bring Values to the Surface.Values often lie hidden beneath the surface, making reconciliation difficult. In a meeting, participants may arrive ready to advocate for the action they believe needs to be taken, based on their underlying values. They will likely push for a variety of actions, and some will be diametrically opposed to others. By asking questions such as “What will we gain from that action?” and “What is it you are interested in?” the group begins to see the values behind the different activities. In addition, teams often make progress by (a) noticing the various actions being advocated, (b) noticing the interests behind each of the actions, (c) consciously scrapping the actions first suggested, and (d) asking “What new action could we design that would address the values that are important to us all?”

Practice Sequencing. Reconciliation involves seeing the relationships between complementary values. We want to create a fluid movement between different ways of acting. To see how this movement might take place, create causal loop diagrams that express how you might move through a sequence of actions that give priority to one value and then another, then back to the original and so on (see “Sequence of Actions”). Practice your sequencing skills on the common dilemmas shown in “Common Dilemmas.”

The Journey of Dilemmas

Imagine we could go forward in time to revisit Karen and Jenny, who have worked hard to reconcile the collision between different personal styles that was such a challenge to their working relationship. What will we find? Having dealt with this challenge, will they have freed themselves from all dilemmas? Will conflict be a thing of the past?

Hardly. A dilemma can arise around any difference. Karen and Jenny are unique individuals; they differ from one another in myriad ways. Expressiveness and objectivity were the most prominent differences at the time we became interested in their story. When they resolve that dilemma, new ones will surface. Their work is dynamic, too. It keeps changing, throwing up new situations that bring new dilemmas to the surface. We could say that Karen and Jenny —  both individually and in their relationship — are on a journey in which they regularly encounter opportunities to learn from dilemmas.

Does this mean that Dilemma Theory offers nothing but a legacy of ongoing conflict and frustration? No. It doesn’t produce a constant stream of challenges and problems; life does that. And for Karen and Jenny, the outcome is not bleak. Insight into the dynamics of dilemmas has enabled them to view their differences as opportunities to learn, both collectively and individually.

As a result, they no longer have to treat their differences as something to be feared. They have learned that, with careful attention, they can reconcile their dilemmas. They have developed a practice of “thoughtful sensitivity” (or “sensitive thoughtfulness”) that can help them face new challenges. And they appreciate each other’s contribution, knowing that they complement one another in important ways.

When you encounter differences, be resolved to seek ways in which you and others can reconcile apparently conflicting values.

At an individual level, both Jenny and Karen are now able to suspend their values, observing how these influence their reactions and attitudes. Each has gained a deep insight into who she is, an insight she can take with her into her relationships with other people. Each has a greater repertoire for thinking and acting, no longer limited by an unconscious preference. Both are thankful they have learned from the mutual relevance of difference.

When you encounter differences, be resolved to seek ways in which you and others can reconcile apparently conflicting values. Building your capacity in this vital area is the basis for both successful collaboration with others and ongoing development while on your own learning journey.

Phil Ramsey teaches organizational learning at Massey University in New Zealand. He is a regular presenter at Systems Thinking in Action® Conferences and is the author of the Billibonk series of systems stories, published by Pegasus Communications.

The post Learning Through Differences: Dilemma Theory in Action appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Part of the reason many of our collaborations lack vision is because they’re based on only one kind of capital — material. It’s true that any kind of enterprise we want to engage in requires some kind of financial wealth if it wants to succeed in the short term. But for a collaboration to sustain itself over the long term, it needs two other forms of wealth: social and spiritual. These three types of capital are connected similarly to a wedding cake. Material capital sits on the top layer, social capital lies in the middle, and spiritual capital rests on the bottom, supporting all three (see “Three Forms of Capital”).

According to political economist Francis Fukuyama, who wrote Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (Free Press, 1995), social capital can be measured by the amount of trust in a society, empathy people feel for each other, and commitment to the health of the community. The health of a community, he says, can be measured by criteria such as the rate of crime, divorce, literacy, and litigation.

THREE FORMS OF CAPITAL

Most collaborations are based only on material capital. But in order for the partnership to thrive, people must also pay attention to two other forms of wealth: social and spiritual capital.

A New Paradigm of Intelligence

Even more fundamental than social capital, spiritual capital reflects what an individual or organization exists for, believes in, aspires to, and takes responsibility for. Based on this definition, it is a new paradigm that requires us to radically change our mindset about the philosophical foundations and practices of business, or any enterprise for that matter. I am not referring here to religion or spiritual practices. Rather, I mean the power an individual or organization can manifest based on their deepest meanings, values, and purposes.

We build all three forms of capital by using our intelligence. And I’m not just talking about IQ. I’m referring also to the collective intelligence of the heart, the mind, and the spirit. I have written a great deal about the types of intelligence that correlate to the three types of capital (see “Three Types of Intelligence”).

IQ, or intelligence quotient, was discovered in the early 20th century and is tested using the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. It refers to our rational, logical, rule-bound problem solving intelligence. It is supposed to be what makes us bright or dim. It is also a style of thinking. All of us use some IQ, or we wouldn’t be functional.

EQ refers to our emotional quotient. In the mid-1980s, in his book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ (Bantam, 1995), Daniel Goleman articulated the kind of intelligence that our heart, or emotions, have. EQ is manifested in trust, empathy, emotional self-awareness and self-control, and the ability to respond appropriately to the emotions of others. It’s a sense of where people are coming from; for example, if someone looks like they’ve had a row with their wife before coming into the office that morning, it’s not the best time to ask them for a pay raise or put a new idea across.

SQ, or spiritual intelligence, underpins IQ and EQ. Spiritual intelligence is an ability to access higher meanings, values, abiding purposes, and unconscious aspects of the self and to embed these meanings, values, and purposes in living richer and more creative lives. Signs of high SQ include an ability to think out of the box, humility, and an access to energies that come from something beyond the ego, beyond just me and my day-to-day concerns.

All of us at some point do get in touch with that higher self. Researchers say that 70 percent of adults throughout the world, regardless of culture, education, or background, have had what they call “peak experiences.” Peak experiences are those moments when you suddenly feel that everything is beautiful, that there’s a tremendous oneness to being, or that love suffuses the world. You really feel them with your whole being, and then they flash by and are gone. Often people are shaken by having these experiences and don’t talk about them. But at least 70 percent of the world’s adult population is in touch with energy and meaning coming from a higher or deeper sphere.

12 Principles of Spiritual Intelligence

I believe that all human beings are born with the capacity to use these three intelligences to some measure because each supports our survival. Some of us may be strong in one and weak in others, but each can be nurtured and developed. Spiritual intelligence can be fostered by applying 12 principles (see “12 Principles of Spiritual Intelligence”).

Ian Marshall and I derive these principles from qualities that define complex adaptive systems. In biology, complex adaptive systems are living systems that create order out of chaos. They are highly unstable, poised at the edge of chaos, which is what makes them so sensitive. These systems are holistic, emergent, and respond creatively to mutations. They’re in constant creative dialogue with the environment.

Each one of us is a conscious complex adaptive system, both physically and mentally. Any great collaboration we hope to build will have flexible boundaries and be in constant dialogue with itself and its environment. As I describe the qualities of the 12 principles, know that I am also listing the qualities that I think would define a great collaboration, underpinned by vision, purpose, meaning, and values.

Self-Awareness. This principle is different from Goleman’s emotional self-awareness, which refers to knowing what we’re feeling at any given moment. Spiritual self-awareness means to recognize what I care about, what I live for, and what I would die for. It’s to live true to myself while respecting others. Being authentic in this way is the bedrock of genuine communication with our deeper self that allows us to bring that self into the outer world of action.

Spontaneity. Being spontaneous does not mean merely acting on a whim but refers to behavior honed by the self-discipline, practice, and self-control of the martial arts warrior. To be spontaneous means letting go of all your baggage — your childhood problems, prejudices, assumptions, values, and projections — and be responsive to the moment. And since spontaneity comes from the same Latin root as responsibility, it means taking responsibility for our actions in the moment.

Being Vision and Value-Led. Vision is the capacity to see something that inspires us and means something broader than a company vision or a vision for educational development. It seeks answers to the bigger, more difficult questions such as Why do we want the world to have our products? and What are we trying to educate children for?

When my son was five, he knocked me backwards with the question, “Mommy, why do I have a life?” It took me months to think of an appropriate answer. He was probably expecting me to say, “So you can be rich or so you can be a good doctor.” Instead, I finally told him, “You have a life so you can leave the world a better place than you found it. You have a life so that you can make a difference.” I don’t know what he made of that at five, but he’s at university now, and we recently had the same conversation. “Mom, shall I go to university? What shall I study? I feel a bit lost.” And again I said to him, “Follow your heart. Don’t think what Mom and Dad want you to do. Follow what you want to do. But whatever you do, make a difference with it.” That’s having a life that’s led by vision and values.

Holism. In quantum physics, holism refers to systems that are so integrated that each part is defined by every other part of the system. As I stand here in this room, which is a system, the words that I say, the tone of my voice is partly brought out by speaking to you. And you are partly responding to me. For the moment that we are together this morning, we are defined in terms of each other. What I think, feel, and value affects the whole world. Holism encourages cooperation, because as you realize you’re all part of the same system, you take responsibility for your part in it. A lack of holism encourages competition, which encourages separateness. For more effective collaborations, we need cooperation and a sense of oneness.

When someone disagrees with me, he or she literally makes me grow new neurons.

Compassion. In Latin compassion is defined as “feeling with.” I don’t just recognize or accept your feelings, I feel them. This is particularly hard to do with someone who has hurt you. Can you feel the pain and frustration behind their behavior? You don’t have to let them treat you that way, and often you do have to fight. But fight with compassion, with understanding, with knowledge of your enemy.

Celebration of Diversity. Compassion is strongly linked to the principle of diversity. Many organizations offer diversity programs that involve, for example, putting a token woman on the board of directors or ensuring that a certain percentage of ethnic groups is represented in the workforce. But I mean something different. We celebrate our differences because they teach us what matters.

Growing up, I was part of a large extended family that got together every Thanksgiving and Christmas. We were a mixture of Republicans and Democrats, Catholics and Protestants, and a few Jews, and everyone had very strong opinions that they liked to express. So my mother made a rule at these dinners that we could talk about anything but politics and religion. Every single holiday, by the time we tucked into the turkey, everybody broke the rules. All hell would break loose as people shouted and called each other names. My Aunt Vera always left the table weeping, and my mother always trembled. I thrived on it. This was my kindergarten of debate and dialogue. It taught me that this type of expression is where the energy is in a group. The passion of the family, our ability to learn from each other, was in our differences.

When someone disagrees with me, he or she literally makes me grow new neurons. I have to rewire my brain, challenge my assumptions, and question my values. I learn. When a group experiences divisive, painful issues, some people ask, Dare we confront them? Mightn’t they split us? Shouldn’t we put aside our differences and see what we can agree about? Absolutely not. Celebrate the differences. Cauterize the pain by letting it come out. That’s where the passion and energy is in our collaborations. You’ll find that, if you do it in a dialogic spirit, the collaboration becomes a container that can hold all that diversity and allow it to emerge into something new. By not bringing it into the group, you lose that energy. Celebrating diversity means that I appreciate that you rattle my cage, because by doing so, you make me think and grow.

Field Independence. Field independence is a term from psychology that means “to stand against the crowd,” to be willing to be unpopular for what I believe in. It’s a willingness to go it alone, but only after I’ve carefully considered what others have to say.

Humility. Humility is the necessary other side of field independence, whereby I realize that I am one actor in a larger play and that I might be wrong. So I question myself ruthlessly. Am I right to think what I do? Have I listened to all the arguments against it? Have I thought deeply about it? Humility makes us great, not small. It makes us proud to be a voice in a choir.

Tendency to Ask Fundamental “Why?” Questions. “Why?” is subversive, and people are often frightened by questions without easy answers. Why are we doing it this way rather than that way? Why am I in this collaboration, and what does it exist for? Why aren’t we doing something else? Einstein said that as a boy he was in trouble all the time at school because the teachers accused him of asking stupid questions. When he became famous, he joked that now that everybody thought he was a genius, he was allowed to ask all the stupid questions he liked. Answers are a finite game; they’re played within boundaries, rules, and expectations. Questions are an infinite game; they play with the boundaries, they define them.

Ability to Reframe. Reframing refers to the ability to stand back from a situation and look for the bigger picture. One of the greatest problems of our world today is short-term thinking. As those of you from the business community know, most corporations keep an eye on three months down the road when the quarterly returns come in and shareholder value is paid out.

One executive I quote in my new book says, “We can’t afford to think about future generations because we have to think about our customers’ needs now and our profits now.” According to that executive, business is not a custodian for future generations. Education too has become consumed with short-term thinking, at least in England, where I live. By focusing on exams, schools are trying to measure the progress a child has made at the end of a year rather than cultivate his or her infinite potential as a human being.

Positive Use of Adversity. This principle is about owning, recognizing, accepting, and acknowledging mistakes. How many of us get trapped in courses of action because the initial step we took was a mistake and we didn’t want to lose face by admitting it? Rather than having the courage to acknowledge our error, we pursue the mistaken course of action, digging ourselves deeper into the mess. Have you ever admitted a mistake to someone where it really hurt to do so? Have you felt the energy flow out of you when you admitted it? I have learned a great deal from doing that. Great passion and energy can be released by saying the simple words “I made a mistake. What I did was wrong, and therefore I’m now going to embark on a different course.”

Positive use of adversity is also the ability to recognize that suffering is inevitable in life. There are painful things for human beings to deal with, yet they make us stronger, wiser, and braver. How boring we would be if we never had any adversity in our lives!

Sense of Vocation. This principle sums up spiritual intelligence and spiritual capital. Vocation comes from the Latin vocare, “to be called.” Originally, it referred to a priest’s calling to God. Today it often refers to the professions such as medicine, teaching, and law. It’s my ideal that business will become a vocation that appeals to people with a larger purpose and a desire to make wealth that benefits not only those who create it but also the community and the world.

Changing Human Behavior

In his book Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World (Irwin McGraw-Hill, 2000), John Sterman provides a blueprint for how to make a system work effectively. But, he points out, only if the people in a system behave as they should will the system work as it should. Most systems have the same failing — human behavior.

If we want to change systems, we have to change human behavior. But human behavior is not so easily changed. To achieve real transformation, we have to change the motivations that drive behavior. Today business, politics, education, and society in general are driven by four negative motivations: fear, greed, anger, and self-assertion. When we are controlled by these negative emotions, we trust both ourselves and others less, and we tend to act from a small place inside ourselves.

We can change our motivations to more positive ones by applying the 12 principles of SQ. I use the analogy of a pinball machine to explain attractors, a concept from chaos theory. Attractors are points that either collect energy or disperse it. In a pinball machine, the attractors are the little pits into which the steel balls fall. Our motivations are like these pits, and the steel balls are our behaviors. If you want to move the balls in a pinball machine, you pull back the spring and shoot another ball into the system, causing everything to fly and relocate.

Pumping spiritual intelligence into our motivational system works the same way. It knocks the balls out of their current motivational pockets and allows them to relocate. In this way, when we apply the 12 principles of spiritual transformation to our collaborations and our lives, self-assertion becomes exploration, anger becomes cooperation, craving becomes self-control, fear becomes mastery, and so forth. As we raise our motivations, our behavior changes. As our behavior changes, our results change, as well as the whole purpose and meaning of our collaborations (see “Behaviors Based on Higher Motivations” on p. 5).

People may accuse us of being naively hopeful to think that we can make the world a better place. I like to think of the poem that Mother Teresa posted in the orphanage she founded in Calcutta (the source is unknown):

People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway. If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives. Be kind anyway. If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies. Succeed anyway. If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you. Be honest and frank anyway. What you spend years building, someone may destroy overnight. Build anyway. If you find serenity in happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway. The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow. Do good anyway. Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough. But give the world the best you’ve got anyway. You see, in the final analysis, it is all between you and God; it was never between you and them anyway.

God in Mother Teresa’s poem was the Christian god. God for me is whatever any of us holds most sacred. I think that great collaborations can confer an I-Thou quality on our relationship to ourselves, to each other, to the community, and to the world. The word collaboration comes from the Latin word labore. There’s a very famous monkish motto from the Middle Ages: Labore est orare. To labor is to pray. Let our collaborations be our prayers.

Danah Zohar (dzohar@dzohar.com) is a physicist, philosopher, and management thought leader who advises global companies. She is the coauthor of Spiritual Capital: Wealth We Can Live By (BerrettKoehler, 2004).

The post Spiritual Intelligence: A New Paradigm for Collaborative Action appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

At Boeing, a major aerospace company, a team leader and his R&D group recently found themselves in uncharted territory as they faced a new project. They needed to create a leadership infrastructure to bridge the learning that happens in the workplace with more structured classroom learning. The framework would span multiple organizations, missions, locations, and personnel. The temptation to leap into action was hard to resist. But the project team realized that taking the time to develop an implementation strategy would help them to be more effective in the long run. In order to do so in a systematic way, they chose to develop an Operational Strategy Map to guide their efforts.

The Operational Mapping Methodology

Developing a map of strategy isn’t a new idea. Most organizational improvement methodologies (such as total quality management, reengineering, and the balanced scorecard) recommend some form of mapping in order to facilitate understanding of an organization and its processes. All mapping methodologies have benefits as well as limitations. Because maps are necessarily a representation of reality — and not the reality itself — it’s important to choose a framework that captures the essence of the system in a way that helps the organization most effectively navigate through the unfolding strategy.

The Operational Strategy Mapping (OSM) framework synthesizes elements from three disciplines — system dynamics, skilled facilitation, and balanced scorecard—to create a process and product that can enhance the creation and implementation of organizational change efforts (see “Operational Strategy Mapping”). Using OSM, a strategic planning and implementation team clearly articulates what the strategy should accomplish, how it works, and what unintended consequences might result. In the process of developing the map, team members generate understanding of, and commitment to, the overall plan.

System Dynamics. OSM uses system dynamics mapping and its underlying paradigm of the world. System dynamics incorporates two different visual languages: causal loop diagrams and stock and flow maps. In order to quickly get up to speed on the terminology and launch into the mapping process, groups may begin with causal loop diagrams. Causal loops can be extremely useful for eliciting important interdependencies that will impact and be impacted by the strategy.

Because OSM requires exploring questions such as “How does/will it work?” the strategy team will eventually need to build stock and flow maps to generate this “operational” focus. Although doing so may initially require a little more effort than creating causal loops, the value derived from this additional effort of differentiating between conditions and activities that change those conditions will dramatically increase the rigor and quality of any strategy discussions. Using stock and flow maps, groups can look at the factors inherent in the strategy that may contribute to unintended consequences during implementation.

OPERATIONAL STRATEGY MAPPING

The Operational Strategy Mapping (OSM) framework synthesizes elements from three disciplines — system dynamics, skilled facilitation, and balanced scorecard—to create a process and product that can enhance the creation and implementation of organizational change efforts.

The paradigm of system dynamics asks us to move from thinking about our organizations in terms of one-time events and isolated functions to considering them in terms of continuous, dynamic, integrated processes. To implement OSM, a team needs to look at the strategy as something that will unfold over time, with natural ebbs and flows, and will likely require adjusting in terms of the magnitude and timing of different elements. The system dynamics approach also suggests the need to identify forces that might slow or impede implementation. It offers guidance in predicting natural delays in the system; knowing about these delays is vital to generating an effective implementation plan.

Skilled Facilitation. Skilled facilitation, based on the work of Roger Schwarz, provides the framework for the process of building OSMs. It offers tools for assessing if the appropriate stakeholders are involved, how effective the group dynamics are, and how to facilitate conversations around building and testing the usefulness of the map. Because skilled facilitation applies an explicit approach to developing shared mental models (both about the content of the project and the group’s process), it is a natural fit with the system dynamics approach to mapping.

The Balanced Scorecard. The third discipline built into the OSM methodology, Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard (BSC), has become popular for helping businesses and public-policy organizations build and revise visual strategic “bubble maps” as part of an ongoing, iterative learning process. The BSC’s four quadrant perspective — Financial, Customer, Internal Processes, and Learning — provides a useful guide for ensuring that the strategy map covers the organization’s different facets. (Although not all OSMs cover the four quadrants, groups should be conscious about choosing to eliminate one or more quadrants from the map.) However, the stock and flow language is better able to depict how processes work than “bubble maps” and can serve as the basis for computer simulation at a point in the future if the team finds this additional step helpful.

The steps for building an OSM are the same as those described for the BSC. In their book, The Strategy Focused Organization (Harvard Business School Press, 2000), Kaplan and Norton describe strategy management as following four principles:

1. Translate the Strategy to Operational Terms
2. Align the Organization to the Strategy
3. Make Strategy Everyone’s Everyday Job
4. Make Strategy a Continual Process

As you’ll see, the distributed learning team at The Boeing Company followed these steps as they developed and used an OSM.

Building an OSM at Boeing

The Boeing Company is an organization widely distributed across geographies, business segments, and product lines; it also includes several engineering disciplines. The decision to sponsor a leadership initiative in the company reflected an understanding that, although the culture focused primarily on formal learning events, more than 80 percent of learning and leadership development occurred on the job. The “Workplace Leadership Initiative” would integrate formal and informal learning and would support participants in pursuing their individual learning agendas on their own time. In turn, employees would contribute their own content/expertise through a personalized web site and a community space that would be integrated into the leadership program’s learning experience. Putting together the various pieces of the program was a challenging opportunity. The development team decided to create an Operational Strategy Map to help them “mentally simulate” how they might execute the initiative.

Translating the Strategy to Operational Terms. The first phase of developing the OSM was to get background information on the project and develop a “strawman” map of the strategy. Getting background information usually requires phone interviews with a few stakeholders/experts. This interviewing process serves two purposes: (1) Gathering information from throughout the system of interest, and

(2) Generating understanding and commitment from the stakeholders for the process and subsequent map.

For this project, the team leader possessed the knowledge to provide enough input for the initial map.

The team leader was concerned about the following areas of execution: creating the initial workplace leadership system, generating enthusiasm among potential users, and building support among senior managers (who might not be users, but who would likely encourage or discourage the use of the system among their staff). He had several hypotheses about how the system might work, but felt that the OSM process would force him to better articulate those assumptions, integrate the team’s assumptions more effectively, test the accuracy of the combined assumptions, and ultimately communicate them to management.

Based on initial conversations, the group chose to focus the core structure of the map on the system’s end users. In this case, the core structure (often referred to as the spinal cord or main chain of the model) assumes that users can move from being Unaware of the WL (abbreviation for “Workplace Leadership System”) to being Aware of and May Use WL. (See the section labeled “Core Structure” in the diagram “A Virtuous Cycle” on p. 4.) After experiencing the Workplace Leadership System, they might become an Advocate for WL — or they might become Resistant to WL.

The stocks and flows visually represent the movement of people from one state to another. The stocks (boxes) are the accumulation of people (how many in each state at any point in time), and the flows (circles) are the processes that advance people through the various stocks. The initiative would need to carefully manage the movement from Unaware to Aware and then ensure Advocates were generated while simultaneously limiting the flow into Resistant to WL. The team spent hours further defining attributes associated with the stocks: What type of person was in each stock? Is there a better name for the stock? Is there anything missing in the main chain?

After focusing on the stocks, the team was ready to begin thinking through strategic implications by analyzing what might drive each of the flows. They quickly realized that they couldn’t directly affect the stocks — they needed to design policies directed toward the processes that move people from one state to another. The group determined that they could have a direct impact on awareness by having focus groups and other public relations-type events. People would move into the Advocates stock through word-of-mouth; their experience with the WL system would influence the level of Advocates and Resistant folks, because the more positive the experience, the faster the rate of acquiring new Advocates.

As always happens, the team identified weaknesses in the draft map’s assumptions. Foremost among these was the map’s aggregation of the learning initiative’s attributes into a single stock. The team suggested three categories of attributes: Useful Content, Features, and Ease of Use. The discussion around the development of these features was heated. Through it, the team found an appreciation for the level of precision that OSMs bring to what’s often a fuzzy process.

As a result of the conversations to improve the assumptions in the map, the team identified a virtuous cycle they wanted to set in motion. An important element of the Workplace Leadership System is users’ ability to add their own content, wisdom, and expertise—and Advocates would likely contribute the most. The greater the content that the program has to offer, the greater participants’ overall satisfaction will be (the team called this the “Wow!” effect). High levels of satisfaction in turn create more Advocates. A nice loop to get going! The team realized, however, that a limit to growth for this loop would be the ease of use. If it’s not easy to add content, then Advocates probably will not do so, making it difficult to set the cycle into motion.

The team found that the mapping process surfaced a dark side of implementation that they hadn’t consciously discussed before: the buildup of folks resistant to the initiative. At first, the group was dismayed to think about the potential for Resisters to develop in

A VIRTUOUS CYCLE

An important element of the Workplace Leadership System is users’ ability to add their own content, wisdom, and expertise. The greater the content that the program has to offer, the greater participants’ overall satisfaction will be. High levels of satisfaction in turn will create more Advocates.

the organization. But after some discussion, they realized that because they now knew the possibility existed, they could look out for it.

Further, they decided that if budding Resisters were identified early enough and were listened to, two things would happen. First, they would likely have feedback that would improve the overall system. More importantly, they might move over into the stock of Advocates. The team believed that people who cared enough to be Resisters could become strong Advocates — the energy would just be directed differently. The team referred to this as an aikido approach to resistance: Rather than push directly back against critical feedback (the natural tendency of a design team), they would redirect the energy behind the criticism — and apply it to improving the product. The team also strongly believed that the process of listening would generate Advocates.

The group developed a large wall hanging with crisp high-resolution graphics. Over the course of a couple of weeks, they used the map in their meetings and presented it to managers and other stakeholder groups within Boeing. In discussions and presentations, team members were able to walk up to the map, point directly at the area of strategy they were describing, and quickly get everyone’s reactions.

As a result of these meetings, the map was modified slightly — yet the core structure remained the same. The team found they could present the map without the aid of the project consultant. In that sense, they owned the map, its assumptions, and the implications it had for their strategy — it provided a common framework that guided their discussions.

Aligning the Organization to the Strategy. The second step in the process is to align the organization to the strategy. The team did so by using the map to develop a team project plan. They focused on the flows in the map and assigned tasks to different individuals. Although the group could have used sophisticated project planning software, for this effort they imported snapshots of map segments into Excel worksheets and added roles and responsibilities (see “The Project Plan”).

Results from the Initiative

The project is still underway, but the team has already reaped several benefits from developing the OSM. The most significant impact is that the team focused their early effort on a seven-day process to set in motion a virtuous cycle around the project. The goal of this experiment was to learn as quickly as possible about potential Advocates and Resisters. The team tested the initiative’s ease of use, features, and useful content in order to assess the “Wow!” factor, identify the number of individuals in various categories, and analyze the quality of their experience in moving to being an Advocate or a Resister.

As a result of this exploration, the team reconceptualized the project’s web interface. If they hadn’t learned from this experiment with setting a virtuous cycle in motion, they might have wasted a large portion of their 2005 budget in trying to implement a system without thoughtful consideration of Advocates and Resisters.

The team was pleased to find that the map was still valid even after the shift in emphasis. This process confirmed that the level of aggregation was sufficiently useful, that is, it allowed them to examine the implications of their implementation strategy at a high level, without becoming so specific that they needed to modify the map every time they made minor modifications to the actual program.

Making Strategy Everyone’s Everyday Job. Another result of the OSM process was that the team developed a shared language. This terminology improved the quality of conversations, because it made implicit assumptions about the strategy explicit. It created an environment for making

THE PROJECT PLAN

The team developed a project plan by focusing on the flows in the map and assigning tasks to different individuals. They imported snapshots of map segments into Excel worksheets and added roles and responsibilities.

strategy everyone’s everyday job. When people pointed to a piece of the map to describe the impact of a certain proposal, everyone understood what they were referring to. Having a shared language also had the unintended benefit of increasing camaraderie.

In most cases of strategy development, management knows the underlying assumptions, but the implementation team is left in the dark. The OSM process integrates assumptions from the entire team. The group as a whole owns the strategy, the implementation, and of course, the results. Talk about empowerment!

Another benefit of the process was that the team found it easier to be brutally honest during implementation. For example, as word of the Workplace Leadership Initiative spread during the development of the map, the team not only heard from folks with a favorable impression of the project but also from those with an unfavorable view. In other circumstances, the group might have filtered out the negative input. But because the map suggested that they pay attention to potential resisters, and that by doing so they could generate a positive trend, the team accepted the early criticism and incorporated some of the constructive comments in their implementation plan.

Making Strategy a Continual Process. As part of continual learning, the Boeing team may choose to go into more detail in some areas of the map. They are exploring the potential benefits of developing simulation models of certain aspects. Further, the group may build additional maps or revise the current one. Even so, they will continue to use the OSM they’ve developed in building and implementing strategy for months to come.

Using the Methodology in Your Organization

If you’d like to use an Operational Strategy Map to help guide your strategic planning and implementation, here are a few things we’ve learned:

• You won’t get the map perfect the first time. The process of building the map is where the learning is. Create a prototype (what we’ve called the “strawman map”) as quickly as you can. Then let the strategy development team critique, modify, and ultimately own it. The process of their owning it will make it better. Trust us!
• Identify as quickly as possible the “main chain” of the map. Use the main chain to ask questions about how the system in question works and what might be some unintended consequences of any activities.
• Focus on analyzing the major dynamics in the map. In the case described here, the team focused on the major virtuous cycle for a week. They asked questions about it, tested its usefulness and likelihood of occurrence — and in the end, they developed a whole new approach to the overall project.
• Fit the map on one page if you can. The Boeing team struggled on occasion as it tried to add nuances to the map that added complexity. The understanding generated from these incremental add-ons was usually minimal. You can always create separate maps of more detailed processes at a later date.
• Once the strawman map has been developed, modify it only in the presence of the whole team. Otherwise, you will not have the buy in needed to implement any new insights. Plus, you’ll likely miss something important when making the change.
• Develop simulation models only to the point where doing so provides an adequate return for the time and money invested. The process of simulation modeling is often a laborious one; it may take months to develop a reasonably sophisticated computer model of the strategy. The siren call of “We’ll find the answer” often tempts teams to try to develop the Mother of All Models. But this quest can become a journey of diminishing returns, in that simulation modeling may not generate enough additional insight to be worth the investment. The team in this article will develop a few small models to deepen and refine their understanding of implementation dynamics.

The OSM methodology holds potential for all organizations. The process of developing a simple, one page stock and flow map of the organization’s strategy generates strategic insight and commitment to implementation. If your organization has been struggling to execute its strategy — or even to develop a good one — you will find building an OSM useful. It’s a perfect tool to get everyone on the same page so that when you come to a fork in the road, you’ll be more likely to take the better path.

Chris Soderquist (chris.soderquist@pontifexconsulting.com) is the founder of Pontifex Consulting. He consults to organizations and communities in order to build their capacity to create and implement sustainable, high-leverage solutions to their most strategic challenges. Mark Shimada (mark.s.shimada@boeing.com) is a program manager in The Boeing Company’s Leadership Development and Functional Excellence Group. He supports his peers to accelerate business results through extraordinary leadership development programs.

The post Operational Strategy Mapping: Learning and Executing at The Boeing Company appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Her search for better advice led her eventually to the office of the chair of the corporation. Bill was 30 years her senior and had successfully guided the company through turbulent waters as CEO years earlier. Every manager she respected held Bill in high regard. By any measure, he was a successful businessman, yet he seemed deeper than other leaders. He came across as more authentic — the real thing. Jill left him a telephone message and was surprised that he responded so positively to her request for a meeting. “Maybe he can give me some direction,” she hoped.

At the door to his office, Bill was genuinely warm and personally concerned. “Jill, it’s good to see you. What can I do for you?”

Jill described her dilemma. “I’ve been working hard on developing my leadership skills,” she said., “But it seems the harder I try, the less progress I make. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong. I’m trying to follow the suggestions I read in the bestsellers on leadership and to emulate other successful leaders in our company, but nothing seems to be helping. The executives I admire seem different from the rest, but I’m not sure what they’re doing that makes them stand out.”

“Hmm,” said Bill thoughtfully. “Sounds like you’re serious about becoming a better leader, but you just can’t figure out how to get where you want to go.”

“Exactly,” said Jill. “Is it something so far beyond where I’m at that I can’t see it yet? Or do I just have to work harder?”

“Unfortunately, simply working harder to develop your leadership skills and copying others won’t bring you the results you’re looking for. You need to learn how to lead from within. Perhaps this is what you’re seeing in the leaders you admire. Maybe you need to stop pushing so hard on developing skills and pay more attention to your inner resources.”

Hooked on Doing

Jill hesitated., “I’m not sure I understand what you mean by ‘inner resources.’”

“I didn’t understand it either as a young manager 30 years ago,” said Bill. “It took a serious crisis and a lot of people fed up with my leadership habits for me to learn an important lesson: I was hooked on doing. I may have acted and sounded like a leader, but I was merely playing a role. I came to the point where I actually began to fake it. I used to joke about putting on my ‘game face’ for work.

“On my own leadership journey, I discovered that an authentic leader is someone who is concerned about both doing and being. In other words, who you are matters as much as what you do. Unfortunately, most workshops and leadership books won’t give you much help on the being side. They tend to focus on behaviors and neglect the uncomfortable truth that you have to become a more authentic person if you want to be a more capable leader. The doing side is easier and can bring quick results. The being side is less visible and requires that you spend time going deeper to do some essential interior work.”

“As you talk, I’m beginning to see that I am hooked on doing. What do I have to do to…?” Jill caught herself mid-sentence., “I mean, what’s next?” she said with a grin.

“Becoming a more authentic leader requires hard work, but it doesn’t mean moving up or out,” said Bill. “It means moving inward to the deeper layers of leadership. The reason you’re feeling stuck is that you’ve only been working on the top layers. As you go inward, you’ll start to make the shifts you’re looking for.”

“How many layers are there?” Jill asked.

The Seven Layers of Leadership

Bill responded, “There are seven layers, actually. But before I describe them, let’s look more closely at the difference between doing and being. Compare a leader to a tree, with a trunk, branches, and leaves above the ground and clearly visible, and roots below ground that anchor it in storms and provide water and other nutrients. Similarly, a leader has an outer, clearly visible side and an inner, largely invisible side. Just as a tree needs both leaves and roots to grow, leaders need to tend to both their doing and being sides in order to develop. Trees with weak roots can blow over in a storm. Leaders who neglect their inner lives are the ones who collapse when times get tough. They are the ones who make the kind of ethical blunders that destroy their careers and sometimes cripple entire organizations.”

Bill drew a picture of a tree and seven circles. “I’ll tell you about each layer starting at the top and moving down. We’ll begin with the leaves and branches and gradually move down to the roots” (see “Seven Layers of Leader Development”).

Behavior. “The top layer, behavior, is the easiest to understand. It includes all of a leader’s observable actions and activities, from how you answer the phone and manage your time to how you run staff meetings or negotiate contracts. The way to improve on this layer is to look for practical tips and techniques for your ‘leadership toolbox.’ Using them appropriately often brings immediate results in the way you execute tasks. For example, if you attend a good workshop on how to conduct effective meetings, you can become more proficient in running meetings the next day.”

“If this layer includes everything you do, then what is left for the other layers?” asked Jill.

“The other layers represent everything that supports our observable behaviors. They serve as the foundation for our actions. This layer is important because it’s where results come from. But it’s also susceptible to management fads, quick fixes, and helpful hints, because people usually gravitate to what’s practical. In other words, it’s the most superficial layer, yet it’s where people tend to focus their leadership development efforts.”

Practices. “The next layer down, best practices, focuses on well-established, repeatable patterns of behavior that are transferable to a variety of situations. If you’re familiar with benchmarking, you understand how this layer operates. For example, I had a lot of difficulty with delegation until I mastered a proven approach to communicating the assignment and getting employees to reflect back their understanding of it.”

SEVEN LAYERS OF LEADER DEVELOPMENT

Becoming a more authentic leader means moving inward to the deeper layers of leadership. Just as a tree needs a trunk, branches, and leaves above the ground and roots below ground, leaders need to tend to both their doing and being sides.

“We adopt best practices in manufacturing for our division, of course,” said Jill. “But I never thought of identifying them for what I do as a leader.”

Bill continued, “Identifying best practices requires that you intentionally take time to research what is proven to work and integrate those practices into your leadership, as appropriate. But you can’t stop there. You also need to apply them effectively, and that requires knowledge and skills.”

Skills. “The skills layer refers to gaining proficiency in a wide range of core competencies, which most business schools teach, such as planning, decision-making, and function-specific skills. It also includes the ‘softer’ skills related to communication, managing people, creating a supportive work environment, and encouraging organizational learning. Since all of these can be learned, you can improve in this layer by setting a learning goal, getting the necessary training, and putting what you’ve learned into practice. The stronger your foundation of core skills, the easier it becomes for you to improve your practices and behavior.”

“I can see how each layer is strengthened by the layer below it,” said Jill., “In fact, I did learn many of those skills in grad school.”

“I’m sure you did,” agreed Bill. “But how readily you learned and applied those skills is strongly linked to your natural strengths and abilities. What I’m referring to is the next layer you need to be aware of, self.”

Self. “This layer includes what each of us personally brings to leadership — our unique capabilities and limitations of body, mind, and spirit. There are many dimensions to self, such as personality, temperament, passion, values, and leadership style. Some people are more self-aware than others, while some are more uncertain about their strengths than others. You grow at this level by becoming more aware of who you are at your best. Personality tests and exercises to identify strengths and natural abilities are useful for development in this layer.”

“This layer must be pretty complex if it includes body, mind, and spirit,” said Jill.

“You’re right,” said Bill., “Self is like the trunk of the tree. This layer connects the layers above ground with those below. Part of who you are is visible to and part is hidden from others and possibly also to you. Getting to know yourself is the beginning of the interior journey necessary for working on the being side of leadership.”

Framing. “The next layer down can be hard to grasp. Framing is a term to describe what you’re thinking and how you’re thinking. It includes your assumptions, mental models, concepts, and ideas — most of which are invisible to us at any given moment. Improving how we frame things is important because the way we think affects our behavior. When you increase your awareness of your hidden thoughts, you become more able to see what is really happening around you, more connected to people, and more open to new ideas. You’re more willing, and better able, to leave old frameworks behind.”

“This layer does sound important. How do I go about improving how I frame things?” asked Jill.

<blockquoteclass=”alignright”>

“Getting to know yourself is the beginning of the interior journey necessary for working on the being side of leadership.”

Bill replied, “Well, a key activity is having more open conversations with people, in which you engage others in thinking deeply and learning together. Through such conversations, you start to examine your own worldview and get closer to others. Instead of simply pushing forward your own opinions, you try to understand how others see the world differently and even invite them to help you explore your own assumptions. Then, instead of just reacting to circumstances, you start observing the system and people around you more objectively. You’re able to see the whole as well as the parts — especially the relationships within the system.

“So this layer is really about the quality of thinking,” mused Jill.

“Yes, it’s related to seeing more clearly and thinking differently. The more rigorous your thinking, the more results you can achieve. There is a lot of power in this layer, yet far too many leaders neglect it.

“You know,” said Jill thoughtfully, “I’ve read a lot about mental models and how my paradigm can restrict my ability to see reality, but I haven’t spent much time working on this layer. I’ve always assumed that people wanted to see me do something as the leader, not watch me think.”

“Me, too,” said Bill. “I also tend to worry more about what people are thinking of me than to reflect on my own thinking patterns. One of my big breakthroughs was realizing that if I was going to become a more authentic leader, I would have to think more deeply. That’s not easy for an action-oriented guy like me.”

“I can see that I have some work to do here and that I’m going to need to find someone to help me with this,” observed Jill. “But I gather there are still two more layers to hear about.”

Character. Bill continued, “Yes, there are, because more rigorous thinking alone won’t make us more authentic people. Our thoughts are heavily influenced by our character — who we are when no one is watching. Character refers to the internalized principles that drive our choices and behavior. Some people’s character is strong, others’ is weak. Have you noticed that the leaders you admire tend to have strong character?”

“That’s true,” Jill replied. “But how can we evaluate character when we can’t see it?

“Character shows itself through the decisions we make and the way we treat people. It is especially evident in the small actions that don’t seem to matter and is reflected in our behavior over time. A leader with strong character treats people with respect, not as objects; presents the facts as honestly and concisely as possible; and inspires trust in others. On the other hand, a CEO who encourages dishonest accounting practices has an obvious character flaw. So does a middle manager who is always gracious around the boss but bullies her direct reports, or a male employee who harasses female coworkers. Fundamentally, this layer comes down to a commitment to do the right thing regardless of circumstances.”

“I’m often amazed at the differences in what people see as important and how hard it is for someone who takes unethical shortcuts to stop that behavior. Do you think it’s possible to improve our character?” asked Jill.

“Yes,” Bill replied, “but it isn’t easy. It requires consistent effort over a long period of time. If someone tends to stretch the truth, he can learn to stop lying but it will take a long time for complete honesty to become second nature. Essentially, improvement on this layer means working on becoming a more genuine person. Let me sum it up this way: If framing is about your head, then character is about your heart. I would also say that working on improving your character is almost impossible to do alone. You need the help of someone just as committed as you are to this deeper journey — someone with whom you are willing to be open, vulnerable, and accountable.

“I think I understand,” said Jill.

Alignment. “The last layer is alignment,” Bill said.

Jill asked, “So does alignment mean you get all of these layers working together?”

“The layers do work together as a result of alignment, but because of what alignment is, not what it does. Alignment deals with matters of ultimate purpose, meaning in life, sense of calling, and the way life is unfolding before you. It’s about getting in step with something larger outside of you. In other words, do you have a gut feeling about what you were put here to do? We all know of leaders who have been driven not by money, fame, or power, but by something deeper. They seem to have an internal compass that keeps them on course,” Bill said.

“I’m not at all sure what I was put here to do,” said Jill. “Does this feeling come from inside or outside of you?”

Bill paused. “Well, this layer is about taking the deepest part of you and aligning it with a larger purpose outside of you. Remember the question we explored at our last planning retreat: What is trying to happen through me? That question gets at this layer. People leading from this layer tend to experience a sense of calling, synchronicity, or flow as they lead.”

“So where do I begin if I want to work on this layer?” Jill wondered.

“You need to connect with a larger purpose outside of you. Books on subjects such synchronicity and presencing can be useful in showing you how to do this, as well as some books on spirituality. I find that my personal faith brings many insights and helps me make this connection. For others, alignment comes from serving an important cause or seeing how their work contributes to a larger purpose that is important for humankind.”

The Layers Working Together

“Now back to your comment about all of the layers working together,” said Bill. “The being side of leadership — framing, character, and alignment — are the leader’s root system. Though hidden from sight, roots are vital for a tree’s growth. In fact, the roots of a mature tree are often twice as long as the branches above ground. Authentic leaders who combine doing and being grow an extensive root system. That’s why they seem deeper and stronger as people.”

“That’s why I’ve hit a plateau,” mused Jill. “I’ve been focusing only on the top layers of the tree, and my roots are too weak to support the kind of leadership growth I want to manifest.”

Bill added, “Actually, lack of a deep root system is one of the key reasons why high-profile leaders fail. Many of them are talented individuals with drive and charisma, highly skilled at integrating best practices into their organizations. They make poor decisions and ethical blunders not because they can’t do the job but because they can’t be the leaders they need to be. They are hooked on doing and fail to devote enough time to developing the being side of leadership; as a result, their root system is simply too fragile to support the tree.”

SHIFTING THE BURDEN IN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

When individuals experience a gap in their leadership abilities, they can decide to work on leading from a deeper place or committing to work harder. In both cases, the problem seems to be solved over the short term. But over time, the quick-fix approach interferes with people’s ability to develop their inner resources.

Doing Is Addictive

“So why don’t more leaders go deeper?” Jill wondered. “Why do we get hooked on doing?”

Bill grabbed another sheet of paper and began to draw. “Here’s how it works. You start by experiencing a gap in your leadership abilities. For example, you find yourself in a situation demanding more from you than you have to give. You have a fundamental choice: Either you decide to work on the being layers to lead from a deeper place or you do a quick fix. Typically, you have to make this choice when you’re under pressure, short on time, and perhaps anxious about how this gap reflects on your performance. So you patch up the gap by quickly fixing it or working harder. For the moment, the problem seems to be solved — or at least it’s less apparent (see “Shifting the Burden in Leadership Development”).

“It’s at this point, when there’s no longer an immediate need to deal with your leadership shortcomings, that you have another choice. Either you can learn from the experience and commit to working on the deeper layers or you can wait until you experience the next gap. If you continue to patch each gap with tips, tricks, and trying harder, then you find yourself increasingly relying on quick fixes. Over time, making the choice to go deeper becomes increasingly difficult, and you end up hiding your inner self and focusing more on looking good. Eventually, your ability to be aware of your inner condition erodes. You show little interest in framing, character, and alignment because you are entirely focused on immediate results, and you end up with a weak root system as a leader. You experience a plateau because you’re trying to grow by adding more surface layer techniques. But only a commitment to deeper learning can produce long-term growth in your leadership capacity.”

Getting Unhooked

“I can understand why so many leaders get hooked on doing,” said Jill. “The pressure to show immediate results is so powerful. But I can also see why it’s important to break this addiction you describe and go deeper. I’d like to try. What’s your advice, Bill?”

“My suggestion is that you decide to invest time in doing the internal work, that is, in developing yourself as a person as well as your skills as a leader.”

Jill asked, “Which direction should I start? Is it better to start at the top and work down or vice versa? Or should I start with the self layer and work in both directions?”

“You can start at any layer and move in any direction. People develop in nonlinear ways, taking different paths depending on our needs and desires. You should begin where you need to begin. Start with one layer and look for resources and people that can help you. Just remember, it’s extremely difficult to go deeper on your own. We all need others to assist us with the being side. So look for those who will give you honest feedback. Find someone you respect who will be your mentor in this area, and discover what they do to grow in each of the layers and to balance the doing and being sides.

“Another thing you can do is identify individuals interested in growing deeper and form an accountability group. Together you can explore questions such as: What is a quality life? In what way do I need to develop my character? If my spiritual nature is undernourished, how can I fill that void? How am I treating other people, especially those closest to me? What is the next obvious step in my quest to become a more authentic person? What do I want my life to count for? These are the kind of questions that helped me when I was hooked on doing.”

“Thank you for your insights, Bill. This conversation has been very helpful, and I believe I’m going to be a better leader because of it. I also sense that I’m heading on a very long journey.”

“Yes, it is a long journey, but an exciting one, Jill. And I can tell from this conversation that you’ve already started on it. Your next step is to imagine what would change if you actually made the commitment to becoming an authentic leader who leads from within. Our business and our world desperately need this kind of leader.”

“This journey is bigger than I imagined,” Jill observed. “It could change everything for me and those I’m leading.”

“Absolutely, and your efforts could change our business. We can’t compete if our employees only follow at a level of compliance. We need people to be fully engaged at work and to operate at a deep level of trust with management. This type of environment can only emerge when we have authentic leaders in charge.”

James C. Galvin, Ed. D., (jim@galvinandassociates.com) president of Galvin and Associates, is an organizational consultant with a wide range of experience in leadership development.

Peter O’Donnell (peter.odonnell@healthyfutures.ca) is president of the Healthy Futures Group, a Toronto-based consulting and training company, and is a four-time former presenter at the Pegasus Conference.

For Further Reading

Arbinger Institute, The. Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting Out of the Box (Berrett-Koehler, 2000)

Block, Peter. The Answer to How Is Yes: Acting on What Matters (Berrett-Koehler, 2001)

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Good Business: Leadership, Flow and the Making of Meaning (Viking Press, 2003)

Jaworski, Joseph. Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership (Berrett-Koehler, 1996)

Koestenbaum, Peter. Leadership: The Inner Side of Greatness, A Philosophy for Leaders (John Wiley & Sons, revised 2002)

Senge, Peter and C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, and Betty Sue Flowers. Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of the Future (Society for Organizational Learning, 2004)

The post Authentic Leadership: Balancing Doing and Being appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The decision-making styles that evolve in the fast-paced setting in which potentially life-threatening clinical outcomes are at stake have significant value. They let team members assess large amounts of data in a rigorous manner while acting quickly. But when transferred to other settings, such as hospital boards and committees, this particular approach to conversation and decision-making can be problematic.

Given their backgrounds, healthcare professionals generally expect that their roles in meetings of teams, boards, or committees will involve advocating for their constituencies and mandating solutions to problems. While more directive approaches play an important role when decisions must be made or actions taken, in other contexts, they can undermine team learning. In addressing issues of organizational strategy, long-term planning, and creative problem solving, generative dialogue has proven more effective than one-way communication. Failure to shift to dialogue-based forms of communication will ultimately have a negative impact on an organization’s ability to rapidly adapt to changing market trends and to truly explore the questions involved in reducing medical errors and improving outcomes.

One Organization’s Challenges

In addressing issues of organizational strategy, long-term planning, and creative problem solving, generative dialogue has proven more effective than one-way communication.

The governing board of one healthcare organization was typical of many in the industry. Physicians attended meetings with the expectation of advocating for their constituencies. Managers learned to fear these meetings, as interactions often focused on criticism of the existing situation or proposed solution. The group rarely explored the challenges through healthy dialogue.

To help determine the board’s future role, board members and other stakeholders participated in a retreat. The following perceptions surfaced:

• Physicians and managers believed that there was value in meeting together regularly.
• Both groups felt that the organization needed to address certain strategic themes.
• Managers understood that they needed to collaborate with physicians to elicit the full range of possible approaches to these issues.
• Physicians wanted to help create ways to approach these themes, but wondered if they would have the power and control to make policies and decisions.
• Both groups had difficulty seeing beyond the current board structure, envisioning that the same struggles and limitations would continue to arise.
• Others in the organization were passionate about participating in the process, although they had not previously been invited to do so.

The Compass Group

The consensus from the retreat was that merely tweaking the existing board structure would be inadequate; nothing short of a complete destruction of the structure, norms, and paradigms would provide the organization with the freedom to explore new paths to achieve its stated goals. With this understanding in mind, the board dissolved its existing structure in favor of a dialogue-based forum that was organized around the stated organizational imperatives of customer service, employee satisfaction, strong physician relationships, and financial stewardship.

This forum came to be called the “Compass Group,” because the group felt that these strategic themes were analogous to the directions on a compass. The Compass Group was seen as a risky endeavor. Much of this fear was based on the uncertainty of where dialogue around these concepts might lead. The organization, however, was able to understand that any learning involves some degree of risk.

“Uncoupling” Old Norms

Cultural and conversational norms had been a major barrier to true learning within the organization. Many feared that the old ways would carry forward into the current efforts. A number of important steps were needed to ultimately “uncouple” the organization from existing ways of interacting, thus allowing for new ways to emerge and thrive.

Associating Pain with the Status Quo. A critical event during the retreat involved discussing aspects of the meetings that board members disliked. Surfacing these feelings markedly raised the group’s level of discomfort with the status quo. This discomfort created a compelling need to move the initiative forward.

Incorporating New Perspectives. The group felt strongly that the constancy of the board’s membership over the past several years had contributed to some degree of stagnation. Understanding that many others in the medical group had expressed an interest in participating, members agreed to open the group up to others who possessed fresh perspectives.

Eliciting Desired Norms and Expectations. During the retreat, board members mentioned rewarding and fulfilling experiences that they had enjoyed in other meetings and committees. Common among these experiences were being heard, contributing proactively, understanding one another, practicing mutual respect, and building upon collective contributions to generate creative approaches. By listing these desired norms and expectations, the group was eventually able to develop momentum for change.

Generating “Buzz.” Through reports from the retreat, others in the organization became aware that the Compass Group was no ordinary board or committee. The communications were lively, genuine, and informal; they carried with them a feeling of realism, openness, and innovation that was not typical of standard emails and memoranda. This “buzz” was instrumental in generating interest among others who might not have been comfortable in the traditional board setting, and in creating expectations that helped to overturn the norms of the past.

Setting the Stage for Dialogue

Because of the risk inherent in any team process, a great deal of planning went into the initial dialogue session. The goal was for people to relax, engage in collaborative dialogue, and explore creative possibilities for action. The Compass Group followed some of the principles used in developing a World Café (see “Framing Questions and Guidelines”).

Establish a Clear Purpose. Unless the group had a clearly defined purpose and objectives, along with concrete outcomes, participants wouldn’t perceive significant value. For the first of the Compass Group sessions, the management team chose to focus on the strategic theme of customer service. With this theme in mind, participants addressed a series of questions that ultimately led to greater insight and collective shared knowledge on the topic (see “First Compass Group Session” on p. 9).

Invite Great Guests. The management team decided to invite all interested physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. In doing so, they conveyed the sense that the Compass Group was “no ordinary board meeting”; this innovative forum would truly make a difference.

Plan for a Safe and Welcoming Environment. In planning the session, organizers paid close attention to creating a physical space that would be perceived as inviting, hospitable, and intimate. The goal was for participants to feel a high degree of psychological safety. The creation of a welcoming environment began with the invitations themselves. Rather than relying on email, organizers selected stationary and fonts with earth tones to convey the message that this experience would be different.

Form Powerful Questions. Well-structured, open-ended questions hold tremendous value. These questions are the most important determinant of a successful dialogue session. Because the theme of the first Compass Group session centered on customer service, questions related to service and to recent internal efforts in measuring service perceptions were developed in a logical progression of discovery.

Facilitate for Success. The facilitator’s role was (1) to model the process for internal facilitators in the future, (2) to provide a structure for the evening by facilitating between rounds of dialogue, and (3) to provide some training around the skills involved in dialogue, with a heavy emphasis on inquiry. Members of the management team had already received some training in hosting a dialogue session and in facilitating smaller conversations, mainly by encouraging a balance of inquiry and advocacy. To leverage these skills, one management team member served as a facilitator at each table. The other members at each table were carefully distributed to ensure sufficient diversity of conversations.

The session opened with a time for attendees to arrive, get oriented, and enjoy food and beverages while conversing with colleagues. Participants wrote the answer to the question, “What is the location of your most memorable service experience?” on their name tags. They were encouraged to use this memory as a starting point for conversation with others.

The session began with an overview of the evening and a brief session on dialogue. Each round of dialogue was structured around a series of questions. In this particular case, a review of the organization’s patient satisfaction data and video reenactments of actual patient experiences were used as the starting point for forming questions. During the rounds of dialogue, the facilitators at each table helped to encourage effective inquiry and to surface hidden or underlying assumptions. In addition, they recorded the predominant themes that emerged.

Between each round, the tables shared their discoveries and insights with the larger group. In addition, they commented on their success with using dialogue skills. As one of the goals of the Compass Group was to provide an opportunity to share best practices, the group used a separate flip chart to capture these ideas. In addition, items that warranted action, follow-up, or future dialogue were documented on another flip chart.

After the Session

The feedback from post-session surveys was overwhelmingly positive. Participants reported that they had achieved a high level of shared understanding and accomplished a great deal. They also felt passionate about continuing the conversations.

The themes and best practices that emerged from the table dialogues were distributed to all members of the organization, along with a clear plan for future dialogue sessions on the other strategic directions defined by the compass. In addition, efforts to continue the discussion around service were implemented by providing weekly questions for each manager, physician, and department to use with their staff.

As in other industries, healthcare organizations tend to depend heavily on one-way communication, debate, and criticism. Unfortunately, these dynamics present a barrier to learning and to developing organizations that are able to innovate and adapt effectively to tumultuous market conditions, a necessity in today’s marketplace. Dialogue, specifically the skills of understanding mental models and balancing advocacy with inquiry, is essential for building organizations that learn effectively. By challenging the assumption that committees and boards must always be structured in the traditional manner, organizations may be more likely to explore formats that are more conducive to dialogue. Shifting to dialogue-based forums focused on strategic imperatives can be one approach that fosters learning in all kinds of organizations.

Manoj Pawar, MD, MMM, is a managing partner with Nivek Consulting and is the chief medical officer for the Exempla Physician Network. He is committed to developing high-performing teams and organizations in healthcare. He can be reached at pawarm@exempla.org.

Special thanks to Gene Beyt, MD, Richard Hays, DBA, Charles Jacobson, MD, and Bob Myrtle, DBA, for their wisdom, and for their gracious and insightful contributions in the development of this article.

The post Dialogue-Based Forums for Healthcare Organizations appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

My knowing continued all the way through graduate school and eventually into my first few jobs. Even as my knowing continued to grow, I felt I had it under control. I was young and had the stamina to know late into the night and still work the next day. I received recognition from my peers for these exploits. Sometimes, I would secretly go out and study a subject, even in the middle of the work day, just so I could control a conversation better, appear as if I knew all along, or protect myself from admitting that I really didn’t know what to do next.

Being a knower started out as a harmless way to get noticed and applauded, but it continued as a habit that complicated my life. The pressure increased to keep providing the right answers. I sometimes took panicked action in an attempt to maintain the appearance of effectiveness. I sensed that something wasn’t right, but I never recognized that being a knower was hurting me. Besides, everyone else was doing it, too.

Being a knower finally caught up with me, though, when I lost a job. Even though I presented my case to the people in authority with an abundance of facts, evidence, and documentation, my defense fell short, and I was let go. I had finally hit bottom (more about that later).

Knowers and Learners

When I use the term “knower,” I’m not referring to a person who is somehow defective and will forever carry around that label or implying that what he or she knows is not important. A knower is simply someone who adopts a “knower stance.” A stance is a mental posture, point of view, or particular thinking habit. It is possible to move back and forth between a knower stance and a learner stance.

The difference between a knower and a learner is that a learner is willing to be influenced.

The difference between a knower and a learner, very simply, is that a learner is willing to admit, “I don’t know” and be influenced. Knowers believe that they know all they need to know to address the situations they are responsible for. But, at an even deeper level, knowing is so central to who they are that they sometimes act as if they do know something, even when they don’t. In his excellent article “Learning, Knowledge and Power” (www.axialent.com), Fred Kofman defines a knower as “someone who obtains his self-esteem from appearing to be right.”

As a consequence of adopting this knower stance, knowers can easily become defensive. If they are responsible for addressing an unsatisfactory situation but don’t actually have the ability to get the desired results, in order to hide their not-knowing, they will blame someone or something else, hide the evidence, ignore the situation, or deny that the situation was unsatisfactory in the first place.

Learners are people who operate from a “learner stance.” They choose a mental posture that includes, at a minimum, three decisions: (1) They admit they are not currently achieving desired results — they want something more or better; (2) They take responsibility for addressing the current unsatisfactory situation; and (3) They admit that what they are presently doing is not producing the desired results. Learners often go deeper and make two more decisions: (4) They admit that, to achieve the desired results, they must go beyond the repertoire of actions they can reliably use; and (5) They are willing to be influenced. These five decisions motivate learners to seek new knowledge (see “Learning Path Decision Tree” on p. 3).

“Having Knowledge” vs. “Being a Knower”

Now, you might be thinking, “What’s wrong with being a knower? Knowers possess valuable knowledge. In fact, employers hire people to a great degree for ‘what they know.’ Therefore, it seems that being a knower actually enhances, rather than hinders, success.” Good point. Knowledge, or the ability to produce desired results through effective actions, is essential for being successful in the world. However, “having knowledge” is not the same thing as “being a knower.”

LEARNING PATH DECISION TREE

When faced with any improvement situation, you can follow the Learning Path Decision Tree to clarify what type of learning will be required in order to achieve your desired results. As you progress through, you are called upon to increase your levels of responsibility, ownership, and self-reflection. This diagram highlights the choices you must make, as well as the accompanying consequences you must accept, as you move further along toward the results that you truly desire.

Both learners and knowers can “have knowledge,” they just use it differently. Knowers effectively apply their knowledge to current situations that are static, definable, and knowable. For example, when a nurse discovers a patient in need of resuscitation, she assesses the situation within seconds and applies her knowledge to that static, definable, knowable situation. She knows what to do in that situation and acts skillfully and confidently. In that circumstance, knowing what to do is a good thing. Most people know exactly what to do in certain defined situations, which is fortunate — especially if you are the patient in that bed.

However, when the current situation changes or if the standard actions are no longer producing desired results, both of which happen frequently in today’s world, knowers become ineffective. In other words, it’s O. K. to be a knower, but not to stay a knower. To paraphrase Eric Hoffer, “In times of change, learners will inherit the earth, while knowers will be perfectly equipped to live in a world that no longer exists.”

In contrast to knowers, learners effectively use their knowledge and expertise not by applying autonomous, unilateral solutions but by inquiring further into the situation. They attempt to implement what they know in order to find out whether or not they actually know it. Learners see their knowledge as only a part of the whole realm of insight surrounding a given situation and not as the single, silver bullet answer.

Secrets of a Knower

As I said earlier, I am a recovering knower. Part of my recovery process is to admit where I have fallen short. These are things that knowers are not particularly proud of, but I share them in the hope that you might recognize some of these tendencies in yourself and seek the help that is prescribed later in this article.

When I am operating from the full-blown knower stance, I adhere to five particular thinking habits; we might refer to these as the “five secrets of a knower”:

1. I Live My Life on a Problem-Solving Treadmill. My life is dominated by solving problems. It is how I feel effective and make progress. I derive energy from opportunities to immediately apply what I know against a definable, existing situation. I solve problems to attempt to eliminate the symptoms I am experiencing, rather than to seek any long-term, fundamental solutions. I resist creating lasting solutions to problems because doing so would require me to design something that does not yet exist, thereby admitting that I don’t have the whole picture, and to eliminate the very source of my effectiveness in the world — problems!
2. I Force Groups to Comply with My Way. I know that groups work best when all members operate from the same page. Therefore, when I work in groups, I must convince others that I have the “right page” and that all they have to do is follow me. If they suggest alternatives, I try to shut them down or point out problems with their ideas, because we might be headed into untried territory. If I am part of a group where I have authority, I manipulate the members through rewards, punishments, policies, memos, and so on to instill a culture of compliance.
3. I Must Protect Myself During Conversations. My objective in every conversation is to win. If I can be seen as right, rational, and not responsible, I have successfully protected my image as a competent person. Any conversation that points out how I may be inaccurate, may be missing something, or may have contributed to a problem must be stopped. I use conversational strategies that counter such threats. I defend my beliefs and conclusions at all costs, because a chink in my self-created armor could cause extraordinary stress for me. It would threaten the core beliefs upon which I base all my knowing.
4. I Focus Exclusively on My Own Little Piece of the World. Because my aim is to control things as much as possible and to make things around me predictable, I focus almost exclusively on my team, department, group, family—in short, my realm. If I can make sure that my areas of responsibility perform well, then I can blame areas outside my domain when problems occur.I must also keep the internal workings of my area a secret in order to ensure that I can do things my way. If others suggest how I could do my work better, I react negatively. I resist interacting with outside entities unless I can get something from them that will make my area function more effectively. Even if a suggested change would benefit the organization as a whole, I am resistant to sub-optimizing anything from my realm.
5. I Direct and Debate During Group Interactions. I expect group members to interact by playing out predictable, consistent roles, which I reinforce by directing the interaction and controlling the agenda as much as possible. If I can put people in little boxes, then I can better control the process and predict the outcome of our conversations. I constantly bring up what worked for me in the past as a way of maintaining the focus of attention on areas where I have expertise. If I have position power in a group, I use it to manipulate the conversation, so that the outcomes are in line with what I want. And I will often work out the details of a plan in advance and then present the plan for approval. When someone challenges my plan, I make them prove why their approach is better than mine.

Moving Toward the Learner Stance

As I mentioned earlier, about eight years ago, I lost a job, in part because I was a knower and not a learner. I supervised a woman who under-performed, played solitaire, and slept on the job. I tried six different methods to improve her performance, all without success. Both the personnel committee and the full board would not even consider my perspective on this issue. Instead, the board launched a “fact-finding” inquiry, culminating in a final determination meeting. I was pleased to finally be able to tell my side of the story at that meeting, but when I arrived, I discovered that it had already been adjourned. Three board members stayed behind and relieved me of my position.

I had done everything I could think of to improve my situation — including having open and honest conversations, collecting and studying data, experimenting with different tools and techniques, attending workshops, reading books, seeking advice and counsel. But there was one thing I lacked: the willingness to be influenced. I spent a lot of time and effort busily learning all this information, really, just so that I might influence others. I tried to protect myself and focus on my little piece of that world. I didn’t reflect on the bigger picture. I tried to shape groups to conform to my notions, and I moved persistently toward compliance. In short, I displayed classic knower behaviors.

My next job was as organizational development facilitator for Gerber Memorial Health Services. One of my responsibilities was to teach leaders the five disciplines of organizational learning. As a good knower, I set out to learn all that I could about the disciplines, determined to know just a little more than those whom I was teaching. But a funny thing happened —I actually learned this material. And by “learned,” I don’t mean that I merely accumulated more information (which is what knowers think of as learning); I mean I increased my ability to produce desired results. I tried the disciplines out, and, to my amazement, they actually made a difference in my life and work. Below, I will describe how I used them to overcome the five secrets of a knower mentioned earlier (see “Shifting from Knowing to Learning” on p. 4).

Personal Mastery

The discipline of personal mastery helped me move from reacting to creating my way through life. As I studied the concept of the creative versus the reactive orientation, as articulated by Robert Fritz in The Path of Least Resistance: Learning to Become the Creative Force in Your Own Life (Ballantine, 1989), I realized that there are two kinds of energy that prompt people to take action: pressure or desire. As a knower, my energy came from pressure, so I always operated from a reactive (problem-solving) orientation. I came to understand that there was an alternative to living my life on the problem-solving treadmill, and that was to bring new things into existence (see “Reacting vs. Creating”).

I became interested in this new framework but had no idea how to go about living from a creative orientation. Fritz’s creative tension model gives structure to the ethereal idea of bringing something new into existence. Creative tension juxtaposes an honest and accurate awareness of current reality with a precise mental picture of your vision or the desired results you want to create (see “Creative Tension Model” on p. 6).
Knowers have a hard time looking at current reality when the results are inadequate and they have some responsibility for them. The concept of creative tension helped me see less than-desired results as just one part of a larger scheme of success.

Shared Vision

Groups operate more effectively when they are aligned around an idea or goal. As I progressed in my knowledge of shared vision, I moved from using a short-term compliance strategy to a long-term commitment one.

The compliance strategy can work, but only for a short while. Four conditions are necessary for employees to feel a sense of dedication to a future direction or desired result: (1) Access to valid and relevant information; (2) Free, informed choices from a series of alternatives; (3) Participation in discussions and decisions; and (4) Alignment of the chosen direction with personal vision and values. If any one of these elements is missing, people will feel manipulated, their trust will be diminished, and their commitment to the decision will plummet.

These four conditions spread control among the members of the group, rather than maintaining it in my hands alone. This is a difficult transition for knowers to make. I must move from having “control over” to having “control with” others. However, breaking the commitment strategy down into four elements is very comforting for a knower—I can get my head around it.

Mental Models

The essence of the discipline of mental models is moving from having conversations in “protection mode” to having them in “reflection mode.” In protection mode, I believe that I must protect the “fact” that I am right, that I have all the information I need, and that I have not contributed to the problem. In reflection mode, I ponder my thinking and actions and ask questions such as “Why did I react so strongly just now?” “What information am I missing?” and “Have I somehow contributed to this problem?”

CREATIVE TENSION MODEL

Using Robert Fritz’s creative tension framework, learners juxtapose an honest awareness of current reality with a precise mental picture of the results they want to create. By doing so, they are able to identify the actions required to move from current reality to the desired future state.

Operating in reflection mode is a huge leap for knowers to make. Knowers feel they must protect what they know — they can’t be wrong or have incomplete knowledge. However, through the discipline of mental models, I have come to admit that there are multiple views on a given subject and that these other views can be valid and rational, too. When I was introduced to concepts such as “left-hand column,” “ladder of inference,” and “learning conversations,” I discovered a way to understand how people think and interact. This is great information for a knower! It takes some of the mystery out of difficult conversations.

Systems Thinking

The essence of systems thinking is moving from focusing exclusively on “the parts” (especially my part) to focusing on “the whole.” As a knower, I focus on “my part” because it is knowable, controllable, and containable, and I pride myself on my ability to address problems. But what if the cause or effect of a problem does not fall within my realm of control? If I pride myself on problem solving, I had better be able to fix this problem. But because I have focused exclusively on my area, I really don’t know how to go about addressing it. Should I admit that I don’t actually know all about my area after all or that I really can’t solve this problem because it falls outside my realm? I can’t be both an expert in how to run my area and a problem-solver extraordinaire when a cause or effect of a problem falls outside of my domain.

The essence of team learning is developing an ability to move from debating who has “the truth” to generating collective insights together.

The solution to this dilemma, I found, was to broaden the scope of what I pay attention to beyond my little piece of the world. I need to focus on “the whole” rather than just “my piece.” Systems thinking tools and principles help in this regard.

Team Learning

The essence of team learning is developing an ability to move from debating who has “the truth” to generating collective insights together. When I debate, I am pursuing the right answer — the correct answer. I am talking about things I know. Within the realm of what is actually knowable, this can work well. We run into trouble, however, when what is “known” becomes outdated and obsolete as the world continues its rapid change around us. Therefore, I gradually recognized that it is necessary to generate new insights in order to make progress. I just had to find a way to do so that wouldn’t threaten me.

I was exposed to a conversational technique called “dialogue,” which is often used to generate collective insight. When I began to try it out in groups, I realized that, at a certain critical point, there is, literally, nothing to debate. We are seeking “emerging knowledge,” which are ideas that have not yet fully emerged. It is impossible to debate who has the “right” emerging knowledge. When new ideas are being revealed, there is no debate.

Team learning does have some attractive and practical qualities for knowers. Knowers are always interested in uncovering new things that can be “known” — they just have to overcome their hesitancy to accept them if they come from someone other than themselves. Dialogue can also be employed as part of a problem-solving process, but it should not be used for making any final decisions — dialogue must precede decision-making. In addition, team learning is a great way to introduce collective responsibility to a group (“how did we each contribute?”), which is particularly attractive to knowers, who are very sensitive to being blamed.

Learn, Unlearn, Relearn

Alvin Toffler wrote, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” Can you imagine the day when people’s competence is based not on their ability to be knowers, but on their ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn? Will you be ready? Will you be “literate”? By understanding the pitfalls of being a knower and diligently practicing the five disciplines, you will place yourself squarely on the path to success in the 21st century.

Brian Hinken (bhinken@gmhs.org) serves as the Organizational Development Facilitator at Gerber Memorial Health Services, a progressive, rural hospital in Fremont, MI. He is responsible for leadership development, process facilitation, and making organizational learning tools and concepts practically useful for people at all levels of the organization.

The post Confessions of a Recovering Knower appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

According to the dictionary, trust has essentially two meanings:

• To have confidence in someone, or
• To expect/hope/suppose that someone will act or something will happen.

In the workplace, we need to consider this distinction. For me, real trust is about the first definition — the belief in a person’s ability to perform a specific task under specific circumstances. It is a positive statement about the relationship between two people:, “I believe you are capable of [taking some action].” This form of trust implies interdependence and is crucial to the development of a healthy relationship.

The second meaning connotes obligation:, “I expect that you will [take some action].” As such, it implies dependence in the relationship. This attitude blocks the development of an equal partnership, where both parties can feel fully valued. Unfortunately, this latter definition of trust is all too prevalent in many organizations.

We Are in This Together

Why is real trust so important? Studies have shown that it improves task effectiveness, because it reduces the need for people to check up on each other. Great teamwork requires real trust because members need to feel confident that their coworkers are fulfilling their commitments as they work interdependently toward the same aim. In relationships based on the first definition of trust, people feel relaxed and can communicate openly; these factors boost individual and group enthusiasm for joint undertakings. Lack of real trust increases anxiety, diverts attention from the task, stifles innovation, and drains energy.

But real trust can be difficult to achieve. All too often, we see people as assets or things that are ultimately replaceable. We forget that others have aspirations and needs, and, given the opportunity, want to do their best at work. We fail to acknowledge that the individuals who design, operate, and manage our organizations are key to our mutual success.

Dynamics of Trust and Control

When an organization fails to achieve the desired performance, managers have a choice (see “Trust and Control”). They can set in place mechanisms designed to reduce the performance gap — procedures, scripts, checks, and measures that assess and constrain performance. Or they can trust their staff and colleagues and support them by having a clear common purpose, coaching and encouraging them, and engendering a collaborative learning culture.

Command Loop. One option for addressing the performance gap is to introduce control, setting in motion the Command loop. At first, the control may take a supportive form. Common, standardized practices can help everyone behave consistently and successfully. Managers usually introduce control with this positive intent, believing that if the implementation is well managed and aligned to a common purpose, then everything should be okay.

The problem occurs when managers see control mechanisms as the means to minimize performance gaps and use them more and more frequently. They rely less on coaching and open discussion for learning and fine-tuning performance, falling back instead on policing mechanisms designed to ensure compliance with rules.

TRUST AND CONTROL

In the Command loops, managers address a performance gap by instilling control mechanisms and standardized practices. This approach works in the short term, but over time, workers’ level of commitment falls and further undermines performance. In the Nurturing loops, real trust builds on itself, leading to improved performance.

Inherent within the Command loop is the second definition of trust — “I trust that you will…,” meaning “I expect you to adhere to these rules/standards.” These requirements do not constitute real trust in someone; they are about compliance with a directive.

Yet people are not machines. As Maslow documented more than a half century ago, we all have a basic need for fulfillment and involvement. To command performance in a work environment may have been successful when commanders held the lives of workers or slaves in their hands. Today, workers have a totally different set of rights and expectations. People typically respond to being told what to do by digging in their heels or complying with reduced self-motivation. Both responses are saying, “If you don’t trust me, then why should I bother?”

If you’ve never experienced this dynamic, believe me, you don’t want to. It can be debilitating for any team or organization. Compliance costs people and companies money, mental energy, and time. When the use of control mechanisms escalates, it undermines individual and team performance and leads to a pervasive lack of trust.

When this happens, the challenge becomes more than just addressing the performance gap; it involves addressing increasing numbers of employee issues. Employees behave in ways that may not conform with their supervisors’ wishes as they seek to rationalize the rules with their own needs and understanding of what will work. They may lack motivation or commitment, as demonstrated by increased absenteeism; they may become obsessive and emotionally volatile, rejecting all outside input; or they may become politicized, seeking allegiances and undermining perceived threats to their survival.

Suppliers, customers, and other third parties readily pick up on the lack of trust. The organization probably uses the command loop with them, too. No doubt it seemed like a good, or at least an expeditious, idea at the time!

Once lost, real trust can be hard to rekindle. In a control culture, if people’s performance isn’t what managers want it to be, then managers ironically put additional controls in place. But, as Evert Gummesson states in Total Relationship Marketing (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999), “Trust cannot be assured through contracts.”

Nurturing Loop. The other option is to address the performance gap through the Nurturing loop. Here, real trust allows for open communication when a problem occurs. Healthy relationships and open communication enable people to work together to proactively learn how to address the gap efficiently and effectively. Basic guidelines and protocols provide consistency and help people avoid illegalities. However, any control mechanisms should be minimal, designed with the involvement of the relevant operational teams.

For the Nurturing loop to succeed, the organization must have a clear, explicit common purpose to which all goals and decisions are aligned. This provides a coherent message and environment with which people can engage and to which they can contribute positively. Everyone is explicitly going in the same direction. Trusting appropriately recruited people to meet the agreed performance goals breeds a positive, supportive team environment and serves as a basis for success.

People may lack a common purpose because none exists in the organization, or because it’s not clearly communicated. Humans are goal-oriented beings. We need something to justify our actions and from which to derive self-worth and a sense of identity. Without a common purpose to work toward, we create our own goals or ask colleagues and friends until we find one that makes sense for us.

As a result, most people in the organization have different goals and act in disparate ways. When different parts of the organization try to achieve different things, tension builds. Managers then put more controls in place. In these circumstances, it can be hard to establish a common purpose, as people may have been working to their own strongly defined goals for some time and will be wary of the new initiative.

Solutions

If you find yourself in a control culture, take heart; there are things that you can do.

1. Understand why the situation is as it is, identify the difference that will make a difference, and leverage change for the better. Finding out about the situation helps to inform you of the underlying dynamics:
   • What and who is sustaining, or benefiting from, the distrust?
   • Who is predisposed and motivated to address it?
   • What sense of “we’re in this together” exists?
   • Where is the leadership?
   • What do people feel they need to move forward?

   Once you’ve identified the dynamics; the players and their goals, motivators, and beliefs; and people’s openness to change and desire to get involved, then you can start to plan your approach to reinstate real trust. The aim is to decide on the most efficacious route to break the patterns in a sustainable way. This can be difficult; organizations driven by red-tape, procedures, and protocols are usually plagued by inertia, providing an extra challenge to change.

2. Stop the cycle of distrust and find ways as a group to rebuild positive relationships.
3. Get a commitment from top leaders to follow through on a program of re-engagement and realignment in the organization.
4. As an individual, define your own overarching goal. Work to nurture and protect your team as you build support for your approach with colleagues and senior managers. All the time, you must align your actions and decisions to your goal, even if you don’t explicitly refer to it. If people are used to following controls, you may even have to create new, aligned procedures and processes until you are able to dismantle the old ones.

Some organizations are so deeply entrenched in the cycle of distrust that one person alone won’t be able to make much of a difference. In that case, you have two choices. First, you can accept the ways things are, do your 9 to 5, and enjoy life. If you work in a large organization full of inertia, you’ll be okay for a while. At some point, you’re likely to become deadwood in the eyes of colleagues. At that point, you either should move on or take another stab at implementing change.

The second choice is to find somewhere else to work. You’ll feel good and will leave on a positive note, looking forward to the next part of your life.

Conclusion

Tom Peters speaks of trust as being the “single most important contributor to the maintenance of human relationships. And for business, it can, quite simply, mean the difference between success and failure.” Relationships are about achieving more together than we could on our own. If problems occur, the most fruitful approach is to work with people to resolve them, based on trust, open communication, and proactive learning. For once you start putting in systems of control that force or constrain behaviors, you will be on the slippery slope toward lower performance and a dysfunctional organization.

David Newport (david@effectivevision.co.uk) is an NLP Practitioner and ergonomist, with a background in qualitative research and operations direction. He works with people and organizations to help them understand the behavioral traits and dynamics that impact both their customer experience and bottom line.

The post Whom Do You Trust? appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

As founder and CEO Carol McCarthy tells it, “For the first 12 years, we worked very successfully with healthcare clients to grow their businesses. Both agency staff and client retention was high, and we made a record profit. But when the leadership team met to plan the next 12 months, we could think of few projects that had truly excited us the previous year. I thought, this is depressing – especially because, as the leader of the organization, I felt the same way. That was the defining moment when we said, ‘We’ve got to do something differently.’”

Financially, there was little incentive to change. For the previous 10 years, everyone in the company had received significant year-end bonuses. Creatively, however, the leadership team wanted to feel energized, to use their best ideas and engage with the best clients — and to have a greater impact on public health.

The leader’s role is to tap into the collective wisdom of the organization and provide the boundaries within which creativity can happen.

Intrigued by this challenge, McCarthy decided to hire Carolyn Hendrickson, founder of Tandem Group Consulting, to help the agency become a learning organization.

McCarthy wanted learning to become a constant part of what people were expected to do in their work every day. Despite her initial apprehension about the costs involved, she believed that, if her staff could habitually share ideas and learnings, they could maximize their creativity, increase profitability, and attract clients more aligned with their work.

Key Tensions

When Hendrickson began to interview the agency’s staff, she discovered two key tensions typical of small companies: (1) How to apply some big company approaches without losing the benefits of a small-company culture and (2) How to grow revenues over the next 5 to 10 years without growing the size of the company.

In terms of the culture, Hendrickson was struck by the staff’s tremendous commitment to health and creating a better world. Particularly important to people was the company’s intimate culture, nurtured by its two well-loved top leaders. Because the small size allowed them to think creatively and behave nimbly, some staff even felt ambiguous about the need for a leadership team.

In terms of work processes, the agency had an incredibly fluid structure. Everybody was involved on every project. If you worked on seven client campaigns, you were on seven different client teams. This organizational design meant numerous meetings, constant communication, and enormous accountability. Although things often fell through the cracks, people were attached to that way of doing things.

Like many small companies, McCarroll Marketing had become lulled into planning on a year-to-year basis and lacked a clear understanding of the role of leadership in building a company for the longer term. Furthermore, people didn’t have a strong sense of ownership. They believed it was Carol’s company and, although they could provide input into decisions, she had the prerogative to do whatever she wanted.

Learning for What?

What Hendrickson realized was that she had to help the leadership team, and the rest of the company, shift their mental models around shared vision, leadership, and work processes. The approach she used was based on a core belief that organizations are complex adaptive systems — living, interconnected, dynamic systems in which change emerges if the right set of conditions exists. At times, an organization needs to be brought to the “edge of chaos” for new order and innovation to emerge. This approach differs greatly from traditional, mechanical ways of managing or driving change. The leader’s role is to tap into the collective wisdom of the organization and provide the boundaries within which creativity and change can happen relatively easily and naturally.

According to Hendrickson, McCarroll Marketing already had a number of these “conditions for emergence” in place: People had a great deal of discretion to decide what action to take and when to take it. They also felt comfortable saying what was on their minds, and only a few topics were “undiscussable.” Work was also delivered through a flexible structure that allowed information and people to flow across organizational boundaries. What was missing was a shared vision for the future and an understanding of how all their work fit together to deliver value to their customers.

Shared Vision. To get a sense of the larger whole, Hendrickson asked the leadership team to consider what they were learning for. This question helped the group link learning to business results and became the ongoing topic of their strategic planning meetings, as well as several company-wide, full-day offsite sessions. It soon became clear that McCarroll Marketing wanted to “learn for growth” — to establish a thriving learning culture that creates an invigorating place to work, develops extraordinary people, and fuels long-term growth.

This idea was linked to the staff’s vision to achieve a dramatic positive cultural shift in people’s attitudes and behaviors about health. In this vision, the future might look like:

• We help a life-saving technology gain global acceptance.
• Veggies become as popular as McDonald’s.
• For the first time in 50 years, childhood obesity is on the decline.
• We are a national mecca for outstanding talent.

Recognizing that the agency’s strength lay in the services it offered — advertising and communicating effectively – the leadership team came to terms with the fact that, in order to make a difference, they had to find clients, be it hospitals and health systems, medical technology manufacturers, public health initiatives, or healthy foods advocates, who had big ideas similar to theirs.

Leadership. The decision to pursue the shared vision raised the bar of expectation for the entire leadership team. If they were to achieve this ambitious goal, they needed to strengthen their ability to work together. To that end, they spent time exploring what leadership meant and how to model it. Underpinning their current thinking was the CEO’s own philosophy of leadership. As the owner of a service business, she placed high importance on sincerely attending to her employees’ needs every day. For example, when her receptionist lost significant weight on a diet, Carol gave her money to buy a new suit for the staff’s holiday party.

Senior managers are rediscovering excitement and a deeper sense of purpose.

That level of attention created an environment in which people felt personally taken care of. Yet it also made it hard for McCarthy to address difficult personnel issues, including the fact that a key leader who had been at the company for 10 years had not been performing effectively for a while. With the new initiative, she finally addressed the issue and moved her valued friend and colleague out of the organization.

Even more important, McCarthy had to address what she wanted her legacy to be. Did she see her company eventually being sold off or enduring for a long time? To pursue the shared vision, she would have to empower the organization with a sense of shared ownership and leadership. It took her a year to make the inner shift from “it’s my company” to “it’s our company.” With tremendous courage, she has begun the slow process of shifting her role from principal leader to mentor-teacher. This means continuing to loosen the reins on some critical decisions and expand the leadership team’s roles in the company.

Work Process. The question that remained was: How were they going to achieve the desired impact, increase revenues, and keep the company small? To do so, they had to find different, more effective ways to do their work and build capacity.

First, they had to address “undiscussable” organizational culture issues. For example, people believed it was industry standard to work late and felt guilty if they didn’t. They were also uncomfortable with the company’s open-door policy, in which they were expected to be responsive to others, even if they were very busy. The group addressed these challenges by simply airing them and by creating fun signs for people’s doors to indicate their level of busyness.

In terms of building capacity, Hendrickson put together a team to analyze the company’s workflow process from beginning to end, a task that had never been done before. They discovered that marketing took up 70 percent of the process, crunching the creative team’s time on the back end. They also found that 45 percent of the problems happened during that back end. So the team redesigned the flow to give more time to the creative conceptualization of the work.

The redesign had significant implications. A longer creative process meant it took longer to close the job, which affected finances. It also meant reeducating clients, who were accustomed to getting ideas in two weeks but now had to wait four. The group is still refining the process by exploring the question, How do we get back to a course of profitability and moving jobs along while still allowing enough time in the work process for the best ideas to emerge?

Rough Spots

An awkward transition followed the dramatic shift in work processes. For McCarthy, the biggest challenge lay in where to delegate decision-making. As she empowered her staff to do more creative work, take more risks, and push the clients’ boundaries, she struggled with the concept of shared leadership.

For example, one of the leadership team’s goals was to have the “ideal client roster” in five years. “Ideal” meant companies that were involved in the best technologies or public health initiatives and that approached their work with an entrepreneurial spirit. The creative staff wanted to work on campaigns that would allow the most creative risks – a significant modification of the company’s business growth formula. Almost 80 percent of the existing clients did not meet the ideal profile, and McCarthy made the gutsy decision to stop working with a few old clients and pass up some offers to work with new ones.

The company’s revenue and bottom line temporarily took a hit, a deeply unsettling situation for the CEO. But when no one got bonuses last year, and Carol asked her staff, “What do you think of the ideal client now?” they all seemed okay. They expressed strong conviction that McCarroll Marketing can take its expertise and work with the best clients to achieve its vision. Their response has made McCarthy confident that letting go of some difficult clients freed up an opportunity to focus on getting the ones that share their vision of making a positive impact on health.

Another way McCarthy struggled was in empowering the creative team with more freedom and flexibility. In one instance, she found an idea her creative staff was going to pitch to a client to be inappropriate and said as much. At that moment, she asked herself whether she was really going to follow through with her commitment to shared leadership. Reluctantly, she allowed the staff member to present the concept. When the client visibly cringed during the presentation, McCarthy thought, “This is where the learning begins. If I impose my ideas, not only will my own credibility be diminished, but, more importantly, so will my staff’s learning.” So she put the responsibility for the result on that employee’s shoulders.

High Points

What’s different and better at the company today? Their bold vision has inspired and attracted like-minded clients. The life science division of a major telecommunications company has engaged McCarroll Marketing to help them introduce a genetic chip that promises to accelerate drug discovery. The agency is also helping a company that produces a device that facilitates the treatment of brain tumors. And they’re looking at fitness and how to help people commit to exercising.

The agency is also aligned with strategic partners, locally and nationally, who will expand their pipeline of “ideal” clients. For instance, the staff decided to engage with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence – Million Mom March partnership on a pro bono basis in support of legislation to prevent weapons from being sold on the streets. Although the bill did not pass, working on the project excited the staff and appealed to prospective clients who have since hired the agency.

Another difference is the tremendous sense of pride in the firm. Senior managers are rediscovering excitement and a deeper sense of purpose, and everyone feels they’re doing important work. The company is currently repositioning itself with a new name and identity (soon to be announced) that reflects their bold vision. Additionally, the agency has begun recruiting exceptional talent who want to be part of a progressive organization. And the staff feels they have laid the foundation to take their company from $5M to $10M in four years — with a client roster that shares their values. McCarthy believes that the organization is now in the perfect position to achieve the desired levels of profit and growth while making a difference in the world.

Kali Saposnick is publications editor at Pegasus Communications.

The post Small Company Big Impact! Powerfully Engaging Your Employees to Change the World appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

When asked how he managed to accomplish this feat, Spielberg credited the use of a large, aerial-perspective map that effectively captured the entire story as well as the camera locations. This rich image, which was much more detailed than a normal film storyboard, showed everyone on the production what was supposed to happen to whom and when. The detailed picture helped the crew come to a shared mindset and allowed them to work quickly and effectively.

Everyone knew the desired result as well as the detailed steps along the way. People on the production could place their efforts in the context of the big picture. They were all on the same page, so to speak; it just happened to be a very big one posted around all four walls of Spielberg’s hotel room.

Old Wine in New Bottles

Of course, the use of pictures to convey messages, encourage dialogue, and shape people’s perspectives is nothing new. A lot of art has this quality, including religious art. Take, for instance, Botticelli’s La Primavera. In the painting, Venus looks out at viewers and, by the gesture of her right hand, asks them to choose which of the Three Graces they should emulate. It is an image designed to challenge the Medici princes of Florence to think about what sort of leadership they should provide: Should they lead with a deeper spiritual quality or should they go for short-term pleasure and gain?

Pictures are effective because they can convey complexity as well as make manifest people’s mental models. For these reasons, they can be useful in a corporate setting in helping leaders articulate their thinking, encouraging organization-wide dialogue to promote greater engagement in strategy and building a shared vision about what the future should look like and how to achieve it. A visual depiction is far more useful than words alone in helping a community of people create common ground.

“Learning Pictures” are a tool used to help people align their thinking about conceptual matters, such as strategy, the nature of change, organizational performance, the competitive landscape, and organizational dynamics. They are large, colorful representations of the business situation, created by a consultant or facilitator with the support of a graphic designer or artist based on input from a leadership team (see “Sample Learning Picture”). The images are then used as a catalyst for group dialogue, usually with a facilitator and one of the leaders involved in creating the picture. Once the picture has been used in these dialogue sessions with people from throughout the organization, they inevitably end up being put on a wall and used for other communication tasks, such as during orientation for new employees.

Done well, a Learning Picture helps to create what Richard Pascale, Mark Milleman, and Linda Gioja, in Surfing the Edge of Chaos: The Laws of Nature and the New Laws of Business (Crown, 2000), call “line of sight” understanding. This kind of understanding, they say, “provides an overview of the strategic context. It enables employees on the shop floor to see the direct connection between what they do and the overall corporate results.”

The Process

Leaders responsible for achieving new levels of performance and capability sometimes jump into action without first having thought clearly about the outcomes they seek to achieve. If the wider community of employees has only a tenuous grasp on the strategic outcomes and how they are to be achieved, then their chances of realizing them are severely compromised. Likewise, if the members of the leadership team do not have a similar view about “the what” and “the how,” then they have little hope of arriving at the destination. Thus, the process of creating a Learning Picture is often as useful to the organization as the result.

The process follows six steps:

1. Elicit the Big Picture. In this step, the team accountable for delivering the strategic change participates in a facilitated workshop. The workshop lasts about two to three hours and focuses on the following:
   1. The end state that is desired, the vision (the what)
   2. The challenges and a map through them (the how)
   3. The case for change (the why)

   Most of the focus is on the end state. The facilitator’s task is to probe what this will look and feel like and to drill down to specific details, such as: What sort of relationships will there be between the company and its stakeholders/customers? What will the working environment be like? How will leadership be exercised? What will be different? What are the dominant chains of cause and effect? What will be leading indicators of success? How will key functions interact and how will they create value across departments? What cultural artifacts will be employed to substantiate the desired culture? What would a visitor from another planet see?

   If a picture says a thousand words, then it can certainly help to create the dialogue that leads to shared mindset.

   The key is to elicit participants’ mental models about the future and align them around one version.

   Throughout the session, the facilitator listens for visual metaphors and imagery. At the end of the workshop, participants agree on a visual metaphor for the Learning Picture that might act as the core theme.

   Some possible metaphors include:

   • Islands in the sea
   • Landscape with hills and rivers
   • Built environment with roads, shops, and factories
   • Formula 1 racing
   • Aviation, airports, and airliners
   • The globe showing connected communities and other networking themes
   • Mountains
   • A maze
   • The inside of a computer

   A strategic or conceptual artist – a graphic designer/illustrator who can use standard illustration software – listens to the discussion and starts to conceptualize the Learning Picture with the help of the consultant/facilitator, who acts as a bridge between the group and the artist.

2. Design the Learning Picture. The next stage is to think about the main themes that emerged from the facilitated discussion. With one client, the challenge was to integrate a new function with two existing business units. The management team hit upon the idea of representing the groups in a Learning Picture that showed them all collaborating in a working environment of the future. The image shows people interacting in new ways and leveraging new tools and information to achieve unprecedented outcomes.The management team felt that people in the organization needed to be more interdependent and share information without the intervention of the head office. To depict that concept, the Learning Picture showed one business function in the center with another supporting it around the outside and then further layers of support above and beneath these two core organizational constructs. Collaboration, best practices, visibility of information, a common language, and other ideas were represented in the picture’s details.

   Before they produced this picture, the organization had created plenty of PowerPoint slide packs about the new teams and the processes they would use, but the framework as a whole was not clear. In fact, some people who were supposed to benefit from this new way of working saw the change as a threat. The picture helped staff see in some detail what the future held for them. Through the facilitated dialogue, they explored the impact of the new tools and methodologies they would be given to use and the new information they would have access to. The picture sparked a conversation about how people would relate to each other in different ways. Because the discussion elicited imagined details about the future, it had a grounded quality that led participants to begin to own and desire the changes.

3. Make It Rich. Once the architecture of the picture has been decided, the facilitator and the graphic designer work together to fill in the details in the new structure. For example, to show that the balance of power needed to shift in favor of one department when dealing with suppliers, the graphic designer included two people on a see-saw. The see-saw tipped in one direction as both people looked at a computer screen showing the details of the supplier’s performance over the previous quarter. The key is to fill the picture with lots of vignettes and mini-stories that people can refer to when using the picture as a catalyst for group discussion.The picture may go through one or two iterations, as the leadership team gives its input on the details and the image takes shape.
4. Design the “Cascade” Process and Facilitators’ Guidelines. When the image is completed, it is important to plan the process for using it throughout the organization – the “cascade process” – and to develop facilitators’ guidelines. One way to use the illustration with groups is to lead a conversation by structuring a story around the picture. Another approach is to simply give an overview of the image and then look at specific areas of detail to bring out the most important messages. Classic facilitation questions include:
   • What do you imagine these people are saying to each other?
   • Which theme in this picture is most interesting/threatening/enticing/challenging/appealing to you?
   • Who would you most like to be in the picture?
   • If you could do one thing in this picture, what would it be?

   With an engaging image and a facilitator armed with some well-chosen questions, it is not too difficult to encourage some searching dialogue around core organizational issues.

5. Train Facilitators and Plan a Pilot. We have found it remarkably easy for experienced in-house facilitators and seasoned managers to use the Learning Picture to enable highly valuable conversations. The process is often given a boost if the leadership team facilitates some or all of the sessions; doing so demonstrates their own commitment to the conversation about the future.
6. Roll Out the Learning Picture and Feedback. It is important to build a process into the facilitated sessions through which employees can provide feedback to the leadership team on important aspects of the change. Leaders should approach the roll-out with the spirit of “engage and shape” rather than “tell and sell.” This tactic is particularly important when the desired future represents something of a transformation from the current state.

A Shared Mindset

The Learning Picture is one tool that leaders can use to engage employees in bringing about a desired future for their organizations. If employees have what Dave Ulrich calls a “shared mindset” about the future, then they will be more likely to realize that future. If a picture says a thousand words, then it can certainly help to create the dialogue that leads to a shared mindset. In our experience, a good picture is worth a thousand PowerPoint slides. Just ask Steven Spielberg.

Robert Bolton is associate partner at Atos Consulting, UK. He specializes in creating high performance organizations by finding, designing, and leveraging powerful connections in people processes. He can be contacted at Robert. Bolton@atosorigin.com.

The post Picture This: Using Learning Pictures to Create Shared Mindset appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Likewise, in a time when the global system is spiraling toward unprecedented change, those of us who want to make a difference must jump into a rabbit’s hole in order to understand and change our reality. The other option is to remain standing at the edge, looking down, and endlessly treating the symptoms of much deeper problems, both out of sight and out of control.

Changing the Paradigm

The late Donella Meadows, a renowned systems thinker, converted the metaphor of the hole into systems language in her essay, “Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in the System” (Sustainability Institute paper, 1999). She described 12 leverage points for effecting change, found deeper and deeper in a system, each with greater power than the last. At the top of this rabbit’s hole, we use linear thinking to tinker with parameters, numbers, and constants, such as taxes and subsidies, as mechanisms of social change. But as we descend deeper into the hole, we reach other, harder-to-see but more powerful leverage points, such as managing feedback processes, information flows, rules, and goals. At the bottom of the hole, in the darkness, lurks the ultimate payoff — a system’s paradigms. Meadows wrote, “People who manage to intervene in systems at the level of paradigm hit a leverage point that totally transforms systems.”

In a time when the global system is spiraling toward unprecedented change, those of us who want to make a difference must jump into a rabbit’s hole in order to understand and change our reality.

In her writing over the years, Meadows regularly sought to undermine many conventional paradigms, including:

• One cause produces one effect.
• Improvements come through better technology, not better humanity.
• Economics is the measure of feasibility.
• Possession of things is the source of happiness.
• The rational powers of human beings are superior to their intuitive or moral powers.
• We know what we are doing.
• Growth at any cost is good.

But these paradigms aren’t separate and unique, littering the bottom of the hole like autumn leaves lying on the ground. They fit together into a larger, cohesive structure. Some call this structure “mythology” or “cosmology.” Others call it “worldview.” Although we popularly equate the word “worldview” with “mindset,” scholars define it as a story that answers the big questions of existence: Who are we? What is our significance? What are the laws of the universe? How was the universe created?

At the root of every system, every set of paradigms, beats a story so deep that most people are born into it and then die without ever knowing that a different way of viewing the world might exist. Our worldview operates like a cosmic screenplay that we enact each moment of our lives, guiding our actions and, ultimately, creating our reality. When we don’t realize it exists, our worldview manipulates us like a disembodied puppeteer, guiding our actions and thoughts.

Daniel Quinn traced the origins of civilization’s current worldview in his famed book, Ishmael. He writes that, 10,000 years ago, one culture among thousands that populated the earth took up intensive agriculture. As a result of food surpluses, its population exploded, requiring more land to accommodate its new numbers. With more land, its population grew again and annexed still more land. Quinn calls these people “Takers.” Their culture spread across the planet, assimilating other cultures, taking land, and converting wild lands to agricultural fields.

To justify this unprecedented activity, the Takers separated humanity, nature, and spirituality. In the new paradigm, nature was merely a resource, not a source of sacredness. Productivity became the measure of progress. The Takers believed there was just one right way to live and crushed all those who lived differently. These deep beliefs survived the rise and fall of many civilizations. Now every country in the world and 99.9 percent of the human population participates in this system. The few remaining indigenous cultures (, “Leavers,” according to Quinn) exist on the margins of civilization, often exiled in poverty and isolation.

Critics often rebut the assertion that there is just one dominant worldview, citing the many distinct cultures and worldviews that coexist today — East and West, for example. But, in the grand scheme of Takers and Leavers, the difference between most cultures that participate in the global economy is minor, a question of degree rather than of basic view of the cosmos. To see a truly different paradigm requires studying an indigenous culture, looking back 10,000 years to the birth of civilization, or looking forward to the new spiritual stories that are trying to supplant the dominant mindset.

Most social and environmental change programs deal only with symptoms: erosion mitigation, alternative energies, poverty reduction, and pollution control. They never reach the level of changing the underlying paradigm. At best, these efforts can only slow the degradation. As Quinn says, “Vision is the flowing river. Programs are sticks set in the riverbed to impede the flow.” Only a change of vision, a new story, can redirect the flow away from catastrophe and toward sustainability.

An Emotional Shift

Thus, systems thinkers must go after worldviews. Many social change advocates generate data and arguments about why we need to alter our global behavior to avoid terrible consequences. But as Thomas Kuhn wrote in his classic Structure of Scientific Revolutions (from which Meadows adopted the term “paradigm”), when scientists ultimately change from one paradigm to another, they don’t do so because they have proven the new one to be true; they do so because they experience an emotional shift or awakening. Stories can reach these deeper affective levels and, as such, are an intrinsic part of every systemic change process. Changing people’s stories re-orders their relationships with others and the world around them, and thus the system structure in which they live.

Some people have targeted our shared worldview head-on, identifying the assumptions that anchor people’s cosmic story. Physicists Albert Einstein and David Bohm did it; philosopher Ken Wilber and many in the spiritual evolution camp do it. But suddenly seeking to alter a worldview can provoke a maelstrom of resistance. Meadows took on the challenge willingly, illuminating hundreds of murky, deep-seated social beliefs. And she memorably experienced the force of resistance after she, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William Behrens published their world-shaking book, Limits to Growth, in 1972. Donella wrote, “We could not understand the intensity of the reaction our book provoked. It seemed to us far out of proportion to our simple statement that the earth is finite and cannot support exponential physical growth for very long. We wouldn’t have guessed that that idea could generate so much surprise, emotion, complication, and denial.”

As most systems thinkers know, treating symptoms at the mouth of the rabbit’s hole usually generates policy resistance because it leads to unintended and unforeseen consequences. Working at the bottom, too, provokes a different kind of visceral reaction, one that Meadows herself learned could actually be seen as a positive sign. No one can change their view of the universe without significant experiential shaking. Resistance may indicate the labored thinking of changing views.

We don’t yet understand what it takes to change the worldview of the earth’s population. Very likely, when enough individuals set off on their own change journeys, their numbers will reach a certain threshold or tipping point, allowing the rest of us to make the transition more quickly. Wilber says this positive feedback loop creates a structure — a field — that drives exponential change. He calls it a “Kosmic habit”:, “And the more people [that] have that [spiritual] experience, the more it becomes a Kosmic habit available to other human beings.”

I took up non-fiction writing at Dartmouth College, where I studied environmental journalism under Professor Meadows, and have been in the field for the past 15 years. Now I write fiction as well, so I can illustrate system dynamics in action. By doing so, I hope to help people see their worldview from the outside and envision a different future through the less-threatening medium of stories.

In the process, I’ve come to believe that, as systems thinkers, we must grit our teeth and jump down the rabbit’s hole, no matter the risk. The farther we fall, the more impact we are likely to have. As Meadows wrote, “It is in the space of mastery over paradigms that people throw off addictions, live in constant joy, bring down empires, get locked up or burned at the stake or crucified or shot, and have impacts that last for millennia.”

Jon Kohl is a writer and consultant working to combine systems thinking, spiritual evolution, and global change in his projects, prose, and fiction. For more information about his work or to contact him, visit www.jonkohl.com.

The post Systems Thinkers Must Go Down the Rabbit’s Hole appeared first on The Systems Thinker.