Archive for Organization

The Wheel of Creative Freedom is Powered by Positive Perceptions

September 21, 2008 / / No comments

If you’ve been following this blog, you know that we’ve been discussing tools or principles for creating our “wheel of creative freedom,” a virtuous cycle to replace the vicious cycle that master coach Rhonda Britten calls the “wheel of fear.”

So far, our review of experiments — the brown-eyed and blue-eyed children experiment, and the Stanford Prison experiment — illustrate the power of perception: 1) How perception gives rise to interpersonal dynamics; 2) How these dynamics tend to become even more stable over time once translated into rules/processes, roles and environments; and 3) How these dynamics (especially as they become increasingly structured) powerfully shape our perception of ourselves and others, and give rise to realities which seem to support the original perception.

In the first experiment, the learned perception that brown-eyed children were superior to blue-eyed children created conditions in which the academic performance of the brown-eyed children improved and the performance of the blue-eyed children declined. In the second experiment, the more the guards tried to control the prisoners, the more prisoners rebelled; this in turn justified the guards position that the prisoners needed to be controlled at all costs and the prisoner’s perceptions that conditions were deplorable, justifying rebellion…

The dynamic by which our perceptions creates reality is neither postive or negative in itself — it’s simply how we select and create (really, negotiate) one reality out of the many possibilities available to us.

In general, we might notice that negative perceptions tend to invoke negative realities and positive perceptions tend to invoke positive realities. In fact, we might observe that negative perceptions tend to fuel our wheels of fear and positive perceptions tend to power our wheel of creative freedom.

It may be useful to note that we are not talking about solipsism — the theory that the self is the only existent thing — which would imply that we are the omnipotent creators of our own realities. Rather, in each experiment, we can see how the resulting realities were shaped by the interaction (or dance) of the participants. Because participants have the power to change their perceptions and behavior, they have the power to shift the system (the sum total of the interrelationships) to a greater or lesser extent; however, they don’t have direct power over the perceptions and choices of the other participants. The power we are discussing is not absolute, but as both experiments illustrate, it is considerable.

In upcoming posts, we will consider in more depth, how our perceptions of ourselves, as leaders, shapes our possibilities, including the possibilities of our organizations. We’ll be going deep with this one, so if you want to come along, wear your miner’s hat! 😉

Category: All Posts, Leadership, Organization, Philosophy /

The Power of Situation – The Stanford Prison Experiment

August 19, 2008 / / No comments

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by Professor Philip G. Zimbardo in 1971 at Stanford University to explore the question of the power of situation to shape the moral behavior of participants. The role play involved simulating a prison in the basement of one of the buildings at Stanford. The study recruited male college students in good mental health and no history of violence as volunteers and randomly assigned them roles as guards and prisoners. The simulation was made as realistic as possible: “prisoners” were arrested by actual police officers, the guards were given uniforms and the prisoners were made to wear prison attire. The professor assumed the role of prison superintendent.

The situation quickly deteriorated: When the prisoners rebelled on the morning of the second day, the guards asserted their dominance through increasingly sadistic punishments that prefigured the abuses later seen in Abu Garib. By the fifth day of the experiment, five of the students needed to be released due to extreme stress; the others collapsed into numbed and docile obedience.

Professor Zimbardo observes that his own perception also seems to have been distorted. It was only when a colleague, Assistant Professor Christina Maslach visited the “prison” and pointed out to him the awfulness of his actions in allowing the experiment to continue, that Zimbardo was fully able to appreciate its human cost. He had to pull the plug on the experiment after only six days.

As Zimbardo writes, “We had created a dominating behavioral context whose power insidously frayed the seemingly impervious values of compassion, fair play, and belief in a just world” (3).

This experiment demonstrates the enormous power of situation. We might notice that this situation included well-defined roles, characterized by a semi-permanent absolute power differential, established by a clear authority figure and reinforced with identifying uniforms. We can also notice how the setting itself also reflected and supported the roles and rules, and thus behavior.

Finally, we might notice how the setting, roles and uniforms helped to shape the perspectives that led to the behavior of both the guards and prisoners. 

So, at this point, we might observe that while it is true that perceptions shape roles, rules and settings, and it is also true that settings, roles and rules shape perception.  Together, they function as a self-reinforcing system or we can use the word paradigm. Because paradigms are “self-sealing” to borrow the term from Steve March’s blog, they seem obvious, commonsensical and “God-given.”

Our takeaway here is to notice another point of power that we have to shift off our wheel of fear and onto the wheel of freedom — to create a shift in paradigm — and that is to shift the settings, roles, and rules that shape behavior. 

Zimbardo, Philip G. “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Lesson in the Power of Situation.” The Chronicle Review, 53, no. 30, p. B6. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i30/30b00601.htm

Category: All Posts, Culture, Design, Ethics, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Rewards, Values /

The Body of Sustainability (A Must Read)

August 7, 2008 / / No comments

I highly recommend this post if you haven’t already seen it:
http://stevemarch.typepad.com/on_living/2008/08/the-body-of-sus.html

Steve March writes about how we inherit our ways of being, and that our ways of being are “self-sealing” — “the ways we act bring forth the world we live in.” And, at the physical, psychological, socialogical, environmental levels, our way of being has not been sustainable. So, he raises the excellent question: what is the body (or embodiment) of sustainability?

I would like to suggest that Partnership http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2007/12/09/what-is-partnershipwhat-is-partnership/ is a philosophy and way of being is deeply related to the embodiment of sustainability — for ourselves (flourishing rather than existing, or burning out), for sustainable relationships, sustainable organizations, and of course, a sustainable economy and ecology.

Kudos to Steve on an excellent article!

Category: All Posts, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy /

What kind of dance are we doing?

August 3, 2008 / / No comments

In my last post, I succumbed 🙂 to using the dance analogy for describing how we negotiate what is taking place in any interaction or relationship. We could use the term “negotiation” or “game” but the first suggests conscious “strategy” and even manipulation, and for me, the second invokes transactional analysis, which describes some common scripts or “dances” that people tend to engage in together.

No, the term “dance” works well because while it can involve conscious intention, it’s more holistic, reflecting both the mental and physical, conscious and subconscious interactions. Given that 80% or more of communication is non-verbal, this analogy reminds us that our body language and tone of voice are conveying much more than our words do.

These dances happen on a very small scale (what kind of conversation are we having with ourselves?) to a very large scale (national and global). For example, most of us are familiar with the classic “dysfunctional family dance” in which grown children return home only to find themselves in the sway of old roles and communication patterns. There are the all-too-common painful dances of co-dependence and addiction, of victim and victimizer, and conversely, the constructive and pleasurable dances of supportive friendships and high performing teams.

The dance we do is always at least partly a reaction or response to the dance that other people are doing. Just as in some forms of dance, one person moves forward and the other moves backwards, people tend to respond to each other in complementary ways, which may evolve into more structured roles. As a day-to-day example, after dinner, I clear the table and my husband does the dishes. We didn’t plan it that way — it just evolved. Small, organic organizations typically evolve this way, and as they grow the roles become more formalized.

Therefore, one way of thinking about culture, including organizational culture, is as a dance of complementary relationships. As with families, these dynamics can be constructive or dysfunctional. Either way, the power of the situation very often leads us to react in ways that tend to perpetuate that situation.

In my next post, we’ll consider the Stanford Prison experiment as an example of how easily a professor and a group of college students were able to slip into a highly dystopian dance within a very short period of time through the power of role playing. The purpose is to illustrate the power of role playing to create rather gripping realities. We are all already doing this today, but we are not always consciously aware of it. By becoming consciously aware of these dynamics, we are better able to respond in ways that create the outcomes we want.

Practice
1. Make a list of your significant relationships. These may include work-related relationships and can include relationships with groups as a whole.
2. What role do you play in each relationship? What role do others play in relation to you?
3. Do you notice any patterns?
4. What are the outcomes for you? for others?

Category: All Posts, Change, Communication, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Teams /

Creating a virtuous cycle (recap so far)

July 18, 2008 / / No comments

Because our conversation on vicious and virtuous cycles is multi-part and spread out over time, I thought it might be helpful to briefly recap the previous discussion and look ahead.

Earlier we talked about the downward spiral that master coach Rhonda Britten calls the “wheel of fear,” a vicious cycle in which our fears prompt us to perceive particular aspects of reality and take actions that ultimately perpetuate our fear. We also considered how our personal wheels of fear can shape our leadership philosophies and organizations in ways that  can create the problems we seek to overcome.   

I also promised to talk about the antidote — a strategy for “leaping off” the hamster wheel of fear in order to begin to create a virtuous cycle, which Britten calls the “wheel of freedom” in which we recognize and leverage strengths, and invoke and develop potentials — of both ourselves and others.

This topic is particularly relevant for down economic times: Because these times tend to trigger stress and because our reaction to stress can either help or make conditions worse, it is useful to understand the dynamics of both kinds of cycles and how to shift from a negative cycle to a positive one.

To get off the wheel of fear, we need to take action which is “counter-intuitive.” Towards that end, we are considering some principles that we can use in our “wheel of creative freedom” towards 1) creating the conditions that best support our visions, and 2) optimally engaging the conditions we experience.

The first principle we are exploring is “perception creates reality”: our perspective tends to shape the psychological and social realities that confirm our perspectives. Towards this end, we considered how our perspectives with respect to Theory X and Theory tend to generate different kinds of organizations and dynamics (which endorse those theories), and how the beliefs that we hold about ourselves and others can either nurture or suppress and diminish the potentials of ourselves and others.

Coming up, we’ll be continuing to explore the power of perception and belief, and for those who like to understand things before they experiment, how and why that works…

Category: All Posts, Change, Coaching, Leadership, Organization /

How perspective draws out or diminishes human potential

July 8, 2008 / / 2 comments

One famous experiment that really illustrates how perspective can draw out or diminish human potential is the experiment first conducted in the 1960s by American teacher Jane Elliott, who went on to become an anti-racism activist.  In this exercise, she praised brown-eyed children as “hardworking” and “intelligent,” and dismissed blue-eyed children as being innately less hardworking and intelligent. In light of that premise, she institutionalized a set of privileges for the “superior” and “more deserving” brown-eyed children, such as extra food at lunch, restricted access to a new jungle gym, and extra time at recess.  In contrast, brown-eyed children were not allowed to drink from the same water fountains and were made to wear a paper armband.

At first, the children resisted the new order. However, after Ms. Elliott provided the pseudo-scientific explanation that the greater intelligence and better work ethic of the brown-children was related to their higher levels of melanin, the children came to accept this view, with dramatic results. The “superior” brown-eyed children became arrogant and bossy and treated blue-eyed students with disrespect.

Even more dramatic was the effect on the self concept and performance of each group: The brown-eyed children began to perform better academically, even doing well in areas that had been difficult for them in the past. In contrast, the blue-eyed children performed more poorly, even in areas where they had previously done very well. They also became more timid and submissive.  

When Elliot reversed roles the following week, she received similar results, in reverse, although the discrimination was noticeably less acute: those who had experienced the pain of being deemed “inferior” seemed less inclined to inflict that experience on others. Eventually, of course, she concluded the experiment and the students experienced a rather emotional reconciliation…

It’s not difficult to see how a similar dynamic can be found with the whole range of “isms” (racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, etc.).

This is not to say that we all have identical interests and aptitudes; but a key take away might be the extent to which perception, expectations and the structures we create actually invoke or suppress human potential.  This is also illustrated by the example in which a “low-performing” student was accidentally noted as being “gifted” in the transfer to a new grade. The new teacher, believing child was gifted, gave him/her attention, encouragement, challenge; the child excelled academically.

As leaders, the “halo” effect is a reality for us, isn’t it? And, in contrast, some people seem to do worse and worse.  How much is the person and how much is due to our own leadership style (or the culture or organizational environment)? 

Some questions that might be interesting to explore around this topic are:

* What is your perpective/perception regarding others in your organization (especially those over whom you have some power and influence)?

* Is anyone going “up” or “down”? What are the dynamics surrounding that?

* What beliefs do you have/does your organization have regarding superiority and inferiority of different people?

* How are these beliefs reflected in your organization structure?

In upcoming posts, we’ll explore some successful applications of this principle, going into greater depth on the dynamics. We’ll also explore how organizational structures and roles shape our personalities and experience, with an eye towards the practical implications for leaders and organizations…

Category: All Posts, Change, Communication, Culture, Design, Diversity, Education, Ethics, Leadership, Organization, Rewards /

How can perspective shape reality? (philosophical reflections)

July 3, 2008 / / No comments

In my last post, we considered how our perspectives can shape the conditions that reinforce our perspectives — how they help shape our realities.  For those of us raised in a Western culture, this idea can take some getting used to. Our ideas (and hence experience) about ourselves and the world have been strongly shaped by Newtonian physics (1), which imagines the Cosmos as being built-up from tiny particles — each separate from the other. Consequently, we tend to think of ourselves as essentially separate from each other and the rest of the world, selecting elements of our experience that conform to our belief, and taking actions based on this assumption (including the development of institutions) which tend to reinforce experiences that support this worldview.  In this way, we can be seen to substantially build the worlds of our experience.  Organizations are one of these worlds of experience.

However, an emerging paradigm, which might be termed the systems view, based on the new sciences, holds that this idea that we are separate — islands, is an illusion.  As Einstein famously reflected, “A human being is part of the whole, called by us ‘universe,’ a part limited in space and time. He experiences his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a sort of prison for us, restricting us to our personal decisons to affection for a few persons nearest to us” (qtd. Laszlo 2007, pp. 50-51). 

We both shape and are shaped by the larger Cosmos because we are not separate from it.  In the weak form of this idea, there are millions or billions of causal threads that connect us to others, such that they shape us and we them. In the strong form of this idea, the world is imagined as holographic in which each part contains the whole; because we are continuous with the whole, we are each the the totality of the Cosmos, from our unique perspective. 

For this reason, the scientific ideal of the objective detached observer can only be approximated: as observers, we are part of the system that we observe. Therefore, both our observations and our responses to our observations affect the system, including ourselves, in gross and subtle ways. 

For most of us, this is a really unfamiliar way of thinking about and experiencing the world, and it is more comfortable to make a mental note of it and continue on with our day. Neurologically, our brains tend to prefer the ideas we already have: each time we reinforce an existing belief, we experience chemical rewards. On the contrary, when a settled worldview is challenged, we experience the uncomfortable sense of needing to “find our feet” once again — to reintegrate our knowledge and experience so that we once again inhabit a coherent and integrated reality; it takes energy, work. For this reason, we tend to resist changing our perspective unless/until the old one become too painful or dysfunctional.  (No wonder change is hard — no one little thing shifts in isolation: the whole system must adjust…)

For this reason, I don’t want to gloss over this really key idea of how perspective shapes reality (or its complement, that perspective is not the only determinant of reality!). As promised, we’ll continue to look at examples of how this works in practice. My hope is that, as the power and utility of this emerging paradigm of reality for addressing felt pain in organizations becomes more clear, that attraction and pleasure become the stimulus for learning and growth. We still experience the tension of the integration and reconciliation of new knowledge, but it’s now part of a larger, exciting process of discovery…

A big goal — we’ll see how I do 🙂

So, next time, we will continue with the promised topic of how our perspective can draws out or diminishes the potential of ourselves and of others — which is (clearly) key to leadership and organization.  This will lead us a discussion of the power of the situation (or structure) and some insights on diversity and creativity. Eventually, we’ll use these various insights to build our Wheel of Freedom …

Notes 

(1) I hope you will forgive this oversimplification – if there is time and interest, we can expand on the topic of how our understanding of self and world have evolved, and the areas where culture has yet to catch up with new advances in science – especially “new” physics and biology.

References

Laszlo, Ervin. Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything, 2nd ed. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2007. 

Newberg, Andrew and Mark Robert Waldman. Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth. New York: Free Press, 2006. 

Category: All Posts, Change, Leadership, Organization, Philosophy, Science /

How perception creates reality

June 27, 2008 / / No comments

In my last post, I described how our perspective can shape the very conditions that reinforce our perspective; in this sense, we tend to create our realities. In that post, I used the example of how my fear of being unsafe on cliffy moutain roads actually caused me to become a more unsafe driver; the more afraid I was, the less safe I became. Becoming a safer driver did not involve forgetting that the lanes were narrow and that the drop off steep; on the contrary, being aware of these conditions rationally constrained my driving. For example, I didn’t speed or try to pass. However, by keeping my focus on what I wanted rather than I didn’t want, I materially improved the odds of my achieving my objective.

This is also true in a more subtle sense. For example, earlier we discussed organizations based on Theory X.  Theory X assumes that people don’t really want to work, and that the manager’s job is (essentially) to create the “unnatural” conditions under which “workers” will be productive. Organizations based on on this philosophy rely on supervision and control, rewards and punishments to stimulate productivity. Motivation is driven from the outside, which is another way of expressing the idea of “control.”

Operating within this perspective, it would never occur to us to “enrich” the work environment to make it more intrinsically satisfying, because the possibility that people *may be* self-motivated and want to contribute will not have occurred to us; in fact, that possibility would be eclipsed by our belief that people are inherently lazy.

Not surprisingly, as leadership coach Robert Hargrove (1995) points out, organizations with this perspective, create the very conditions that discourage employee enrollment, and generate passivity (endorsing the assumptions of Theory X).

Now imagine that things aren’t working very well — which given that current conditions require organizations to become more creative, proactive and adaptive, would likely be true for this kind of organization. Given these beliefs, the most likely response of a leadership team influenced by Theory X thinking would be to tighten controls. This would *tend* to further decrease commitment and increase passive compliance — a classic organizational wheel of fear.

In my next post, we will consider the very interesting example of the power of our perceptions in shaping both ourselves and the self-perceptions of others. This can be very subtle, yet it shapes personal, family, community, organizational, national and world histories.  Then, in subsequent posts, we’ll begin to apply these insights to our wheel of freedom and creativity.

Hargrove, Robert. Masterful Coaching: Extraordinary Results by Impacting People and the Way They Think and Work Together. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 1995.

Category: All Posts, Change, Coaching, Creativity, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership /

“When driving, keep your eyes on where you want to go”

June 20, 2008 / / 2 comments

steering wheelIn earlier posts, we talked about how our “wheel of fear” (Britten 2001) can lead us to take actions that perpetuate the very conditions we are trying to alleviate with our reflexive actions and the wheel of being (Christie 2008) which shows how both our “wheel of fear” and “wheel of freedom” (Britten 2001) are driven by our perspectives.

In today’s post, we’ll begin to explore the wheel of being, and in particular, the role of perspective in shaping our actions and our experience of the results of our actions, in a practical and grounded way.

People who know me well know that I’m not a big fan of cliffy mountain roads. My father was almost killed on a road like this as a child, and he passed his fears on to me. Some people can nonchalantly cruise along the edge of a multi-story drop off without thinking twice, but I’ve always been focused on the edge, the areas where there is little margin for error, and on the drop. Further, I was also aware that being nervous about it made me a less safe driver. As I tightened my grip on the wheel, I became more rigid, and less flexible and responsive to conditions. In general, when we’re in fear, we tend to react rather than respond.

In recent years, I lived in a mountain community where I needed to drive this kind of road on a regular basis. At about this time, I heard a really practical bit of information: When we’re driving, we tend drive towards what we are looking at; therefore, the best way to stay on the road is to keep your eyes on where you want to go. I put this advice into action, and immediately found that it to be very useful. Keeping my attention on where I wanted to go substantially changed my experience: certainly, I was still aware of my surroundings, but the road seemed much more comfortable and drivable. As a result, my confidence increased, and I became a much safer driver.

If you think about, this is also true in the more general sense: we tend to move towards what we are focusing on. For example, it’s often been said that in dealing with their problems, organizations sometimes lose track of their vision, with the result being that their problems multiply.

In upcoming posts, we will continue to explore just how our perspective shapes our realities. It’s more than perceptual in that we respond in both subtle and non-subtle ways that can create or reinforce the realities we perceive.  When we’re really clear on this, our way off the hamster wheel of fear and on to our wheel of freedom — which is also the “wheel” of creativity — becomes obvious.

Britten, Rhonda. Fearless Living: Live Without Excuses and Love Without Regrets. NY: The Berkley Publishing Group,

Category: All Posts, Change, Creativity, Leadership, Organization, Vision /

What is your organizational “wheel of fear”?

May 23, 2008 / / No comments

In my last post, http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/05/16/trust-as-an-enabler-of-change/ we talked about how fear can both prompt and frustrate change. Presently, macro forces, prominently including global competition and outsourcing, are increasing fear and insecurity, while requiring organizations to become more creative, collaborative and adaptable.  However, it seems the actions we take from a perspective of fear are often maladaptive.

For example, one common response to fear is to become more controlling. It might be useful to notice two things about control that can undermine our effectiveness: First, when we attempt to “control” others, we take away some of their free will and dignity. And, second, when we are controlling, is there an implied threat of force? For example, what if people don’t comply –what action will we take then? And how does the threat of force tend to effect the quality of your relationships?

As a result, the people we would control are likely to both feel threatened and the need to re-exert some control of their own. As Hargrove (1995) points out, this tends to show up as a lack of enrollment, a lack of trust, and other subtle and not-so-subtle forms of rebellion. Although control can indeed get results, we pay a price for them. And as people become less enrolled, do we not then see the need for more control, more force? We find our selves on a “wheel of fear” (Britton, 2001) — a non-virtuous cycle that can lead to plummeting morale and, to the degree that we rely on organizational member enrollment, diminished organizational effectiveness.     

Biologically, fear invokes our “reptilian brain” which is concerned with survival, but which isn’t very smart, which helps explain why our reactions to fear tend not to be very intelligent.

In our next post, we will begin to explore some strategies for moving off our “wheel of fear” and onto our “wheel of freedom.”

References

Britton, Rhonda. (2001). Fearless Living. NY: Penguin.

Hargrove, Robert. Masterful Coaching: Extraordinary Results by Impacting People & the Way They Think & Work Together. SF: Pfeiffer, 1995.

Category: All Posts, Collaboration, Creativity, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Science, Trust /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee