Is our need for control inhibiting needed change?

May 16, 2008 / / One comment

“After so many years of defending ourselves against life and searching for better controls, we sit exhausted in the unyielding structures of organization we’ve created, wondering what happened. What happened to effectiveness, to creativity, to meaning? What happened to us? Trying to get these structures to change becomes the challenge of our lives. We draw their futures and design them into clearly better forms. We push them, we prod them. We try fear, we try enticement. We collect tools, we study techniques. We use everything we know and end up nowhere. What happened?  

Yet it is only our worldview that dooms us to this incompetence. This world that we seek to control so carefully is a world we have created. We created it by what we chose to notice, by the images we used to describe what we were seeing. It was we who decided that the world was a great machine propelled by external energies. It was we who perceived the creativity of life as a dire threat. We saw life in motion and called it uncontrollable. We saw life’s unceasing desires for discovery-we say the dance-and called it disruptive..

Yet out beyond the shadows of our old thinking, a wholly different world appears. […] A world that welcomes and supports our endeavors. The world knows how to grow and change. It has been doing so for billions of years. Life knows how to create systems. Life knows how to create greater capacity. Life knows how to discover meaning. The motions that we sought to wrestle from life’s control are available to us to support our desires if we can stop being so afraid.”  (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996)

Our organizations arise out of our perspectives, which give rise to our deepest psychological beliefs and values.  Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers insightfully observe that the impulse to control arises from fear and distrust (ultimately, of the world and other people). Yet, by now it’s generally become clear that centralized, bureaucratic organizations (whether they be businesses or governments) are unable to respond rapidly enough to changing conditions.

It seems to be human nature that, the more fearful we are, the tighter we hold the reins of control, and the more resistant we will be to change. Yet, if environmental conditions have truly changed, change may be what we most need to survive.

How do we break out of this vicious cycle? Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers describe a perspective of trust.  Is that “realistic”?

In the next post, we will look at this organizational “wheel of fear” and some strategies for replacing it with an organizational “wheel of freedom” (Britton, 2001).

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

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

Organization as Organism & Machine

May 9, 2008 / / 15 comments

In my last post we backed our way into a discussion of an emerging way of thinking about leadership and organization: the metaphor of the organization as an organsim. 

 http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/05/01/the-brain-as-a-metaphor-for-organization/

As we talked about earlier, metaphors are maps of the terrain that can yield some useful insights, so we don’t need to hold on to them too tightly (as an ideology). Rather, when considering a metaphor we might ask two questions:

  1. Does it have some basis in reality?
  2. Is it useful?

Whereas the organization as a machine metaphor can be seen to have arisen out of Newtonian physics (the view of the Cosmos as machine) and the industrial revolution, the metaphor of the organization as an organism has its recent roots in new physics and biology, and the framework of systems theory, which observes that the whole has emergent properties that can’t be fully explained by examining each of the parts. Rather these properties emerge as a result of the relationship and interaction of the parts. 

I’ll apologize in advance for this: A useful but gorey example that is often given is that you sacrifice an animal and examine each of its parts, you won’t find life; life is an emergent property of the whole animal.  The same could be said of  a well-functioning team: a quality emerges in the interaction that only exists in potential in the individual team members.

 Seeing relationships vs. parts requires us to shift our vision. Are you familiar with the famous cognitive optical illusion: the figure-ground vase? http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/Facevase.php

The image can be validly interpreted as two faces or as a vase. The one we see is the result of a mental interpretation, which may or may not be conscious. Once we’ve seen one view, it can be a challenge to see the other, because our current perspective is so obvious to us!  Yet, if we look for the other figure, as described by others (or the text), we can see that as well.  

And so it is with our metaphors of organization (and the cosmos). We might see the parts or we might see the relationships/interactions of the parts and the structures formed by those interactions.  As Westerners, our cultural history has attuned us to see the parts very well. However, most of us have not been trained to “see” the tangible reality of the qualities that emerge in relationship and how these materially influence what emerges as the whole.

Coming back to our earlier post on the brain analogy for organizations … Scientist Fritjof Capra (1988) observes that biological organisms often have some machine-like qualities (Turning Point, p. 266).  Our knowledge of these qualities has empowered the accomplishments of modern medicine. And, it is also true that biological organisms (and as it turns out, social organizations) also have emerging systemic properties. To “see” how relationships give rise to these properties, we need to shift our field of vision to look at relationships and patterns of relationship.  (This is where Riane Eisler’s concept of Partnership can be seen to be very relevant to leadership and organizational development).

This is just one example of how a shift in perspective can be extremely powerful in opening up a whole new set of tools and possibilities. And that is what coaching is all about…

Category: All Posts, Coaching, Collaboration, Communication, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy, Science, Teams /

The brain as a metaphor for organization

May 1, 2008 / / One comment

In Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, Margaret Wheatley discusses the metaphor of the organization as self-organizing system.  From a biological perspective, we can see that successful systems dynamically both help shape and adapt to changing environmental conditions: the successful organization and environment evolve together.  Conversely, the unsuccessful organization might be seen as one that does not respond quickly enough to changing conditions in a way that promotes both its own flourishing and the flourishing of the larger environment.   

Waldrup’s article (see link below) might be seen as complementary to these ideas, in that, using the human brain as an example, it shows how successful complex systems can include specialization and executive functions. Although this article doesn’t mention this topic, it is also potentially instructive to note that the more researchers study the brain, the more “plastic” they are finding it to be, with respect to developing new capacities and connections. 

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/stories/2003/03/09/mitchWaldrupTheBrainAsAMetaphorForOrganization.html

One of the reasons that I am personally excited about coaching is that it is an excellent method for creating these new connections at both the individual and organizational levels. 

Category: All Posts, Coaching, Communication, Leadership, Organization, Science, Vision /

Unwritten rules determine behavior

April 27, 2008 / / No comments

Executive coach Robert Hargrove (1995) asks, “Why do so few chief executives succeed at making their vision statements come alive, even when people agree with them intellectually and emotionally? Why are so many managers and employees frustrated, skeptical, and even cynical aobut their own ability to make something happen?” (107)

Hargrove interviewed Dr. Peter Scott-Morgan, an Arthur D. Little consultant, who offers a very straightforward explanation: everything people do makes sense if you understand the unwritten rules of the organization.  For example, in 1990, a team at Ford Motor Company took a new “learning” approach to building the next generation Lincoln Continental. Despite bringing the new product to market substantially faster and reducing defects in the new car by 20% and thereby saving $65 million dollars, the manager of the project was “passed over for promotion and given early retirement.” Why? Because his organization broke the unwritten rule at Ford of talking openly about problems, which was thought to reflect poorly on his organization. The project was a practical success and a political failure. (108)

Other examples are the CEO who talks about the importance of collaboration and team work, yet rewards members of his or her team based on the size of their organizations or bases their bonuses primarily on the accomplishment of individual objectives.  People in the organization sense the conflict, assess what, at the end of the day, is actually rewarded, and take action based on realities on the ground (109-110).  

Scott-Morgan suggests several strategies for discovering and leading change in light of these unwritten rules:

1. First, discover the rules: Talk with people about the disconnects between formal policy and unwitten rules, the logic behind the unwritten rules, and about business goals and how they do or don’t connect to what they do.

2. Uncover the operative reward system, which substantially shape these rules. This reward system can be understood in terms of: a) Motivators: what is important to this person or group; b) Enablers: who can give it to them or help them get it; and c) Triggers: under what conditions will the enabler “grant a reward or impose a penalty.”

It’s interesting to note that the operative reward system strongly overlaps with but is not necessarily identical to the formal reward system.

3. Consider how the unwritten rules shape the actual functioning of the organization.

4. “Change the rules or go with the flow”: If you are in charge, you have some power to reshape the unwritten rules to get the outcome you want. Otherwise, your options are to find a sponsor who can help bring the disconnect to people who have the power to change it or find a way to use these insights to develop a pragmatic plan to obtain the outcome you want  (111-116).

 I would add that if the CEO or other leader is observant, s/he may have these insights at an implicit level. Asking the questions: “What do I want to have happen (and what does that look like)?” and “What do I actually reward and punish?” can potentially yield some useful insights. 

And, because our assumptions and expectations shape our organizations, including how we actually reward and punish people, it might be very helpful to ask, “What do I really value, and why?”  

References

Hargrove, R. (1995) Masterful coaching: Extraordinary results by impacting people and the way they think and work together. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Scott-Morgan, P. (1994). The unwritten rules of the game. New York: McGraw Hill.

Category: All Posts, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Rewards, Values, Vision /

Lesson in Leadership Communications

April 21, 2008 / / No comments

My colleagues seated in the rows behind us seemed to be much slower on the uptake than I had given them credit for. Could it be that we leaders in the front row were, in fact, smarter?

To begin at the beginning, my colleagues and I were attending a workshop that I had organized for a high technology company in Northern California. Early in the training, the facilitator organized a training game. She divided us into three teams (or mini-organizations) of about 9 people each. To simulate the communication dynamics of most organizations, each group was seated in three rows, with more senior leaders in the front and less senior participants in the back.

The task would be given to each team in writing. Whichever team completed the task first would win. The rules of the game were:

  1. All communication needed to be in writing.
  2. Each row acted as a team, and had to agree on what to write.
  3. Each row could only initiate communications with the row behind it (senior to less senior)
  4. The less senior row could only respond to the specific instruction or question.
  5. All communications needed to be written on the same sheet of paper; that is, each row had to receive a response before it initiated the next communication.

We each received a piece of paper with our instructions. We in the front row compared our notes. The paper said that the task was for everyone to pass the paper with their instructions on it forward. The communication setup was a little awkward but the task was stone-simple. We were confident we’d have it done in less than a minute!

We “leaders” scribbled our request on a piece of paper and passed it back: “Ok – let’s just do it!”

Instead of receiving the flood of papers forward as we expected, there was a long silence, and then some writing, then more silence. What is taking them so long? we wondered. It was a little frustrating to misfire on such a simple task.

Finally, we received our paper back, with question marks on it! The other two rows apparently didn’t understand the instructions. OK, how could we make it any plainer…. We wrote: “Just go ahead and pass them forward now.”

The result was, unfortunately, the same. We “front-rowers” were frustrated, baffled and a bit disgusted that our colleagues lacked our clarity and competitive spirit. Yet, in being critical of our colleagues, I notice that there is something of a sense of self-affirmation…

Ours was not the only group to struggle with this exercise, which was both discouraging and reassuring…

After several minutes of watching us flail, the trainer changed the rules and allowed us to all communicate directly. What we soon discovered was that only the people in the front row had been given the objective; the other two rows were simply instructed to do what the row in front of them told them to do.

At that moment, I understood that we in the first row were, in fact, the ones who had been incompetent in that situation. Have you ever made the mistake of driving the wrong way down a one way street? Others appeared wrong to us, because we ourselves were in the wrong. And, we were entrenched in our error, because we all saw the world the same way — differently than the rest of our “organization” saw it — and the “rules” made it very difficult to get the feedback we needed. As a result, our organizations executed poorly and we were convinced that the problem lay outside ourselves.

What a great learning experience, on many levels! Here are some insights I personally took away from that experience:

  1. As leaders, we need to be careful to ensure that we have clearly communicated the world as we see it, including facts, the models that guide our thinking, and our objectives. It’s folly to assume that we are all on the same page.
  2. When upward feedback loops are limited, we can easily become disconnected from the realities faced by organizational members.
  3. This limitation can also shield us from knowledge of our real strengths and failings.
  4. When organizational performance is subpar or when organizational members are performing poorly, the first place to look to solve the problem must be at ourselves. What are we doing (or not doing) that is creating this result?
Category: All Posts, Communication, Leadership, Rewards, Teams /

Why do people not create or innovate?

April 11, 2008 / / No comments

The key quesiton isn’t “what fosters creativity?”  But it is why in God’s name isn’t everyone creative? Where was the human potential lost? How was it crippled? I think therefore a good question might be not why do people create? but why do people not create or innovate? We have got to abandon that sense of amazement in the face of creativity, as if it were a miracle if anybody created anything. — Abraham Maslow

Maslow observes that creativity and innovation are natural endowments — we only need to watch young children and remember our own childhoods to know that this is so.  So, why do we, as adults, commonly think of creativity and innovation as qualities that primarily describe the relatively small group of professional creatives? And, why do organizations struggle with the question of how to become more innovative?

Almost 40 years ago, futurist Alvin Toffler observed that our education system was designed to develop citizens who could take up their positions in the industrializing world, as cogs in the great machine (Future Shock, 1970).  Beyond the content of the coursework itself,  schools teach children how to show up on time, follow directions, work within an incentive system that emphasizes external rewards and punishments and to conform to a social program.  Creativity and innovation are generally channeled into art (where classes in art are still offered).  “Play” is considered childish.  Speaking personally, it wasn’t until graduate school that I felt encouraged to think for myself and to create new ideas and knowledge …

Then, as Alfonoso Montuori describes, our organizations are still dominated by bureaucratic forms of leadership and organization designed for the industrial age, which values conformance, compliance, industry, and relies primarily on external reward systems.  Although, as leaders, we intellectually know that our organizations need to become substantially more innovative to survive and thrive, at an emotional level, most of us in this culture, have come to value control and compliance even more…

Maslow’s good news is to remind us that we are all naturally creative. Just as we learned how to suppress and narrowly channel our creativity, we can also begin to unlock our creative potential by removing  those learned barriers (both institutional and internal). 

In order to do this, we will need to circle around to a discussion of the concept of control or power-over, which seems to be creativity’s chief antagonist…

Category: All Posts, Creativity, Culture, Education, Innovation, Leadership, Organization, Rewards /

Constraints on upwards communication in traditional organizations

April 9, 2008 / / No comments

On “How to Avoid Flatterers,” Machiavelli writes:

[T]here is no way to avoid flattery except by letting men know that they will not offend by telling the truth; yet if every man is free to tell you the truth, you will not receive due respect. Therefore a prudent prince will [choose] the wise men of his state and [grant] only to them the freedom to tell him truth, but only concerning those matters about which he asks, and no others. Yet he should question them about all matters, listen to their opinions, and then decide for himself as he wishes. He should treat these councils and the individual advisers in such a way as to make it more clear that there words will be the more welcome the more freely they are spoken. Except these men, he should listen to no one, but rather purse the course agreed upon and to do so resolutely. […] A prince, therefore, should always seek advice, but only when he, not someone else chooses. Indeed, he should discourage everyone from giving advice unless he has asked for it. In fact, if he should observe that someone is withholding the truth, he should show annoyance. (Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince, trans. Daniel Donno, New York: Random House, 1966).

Machievelli, here, astutely observes that, in order to preserve authority, traditional authoritarian leadership must limit the upward flow of information.  However, this authority is bought at the cost of:

1. a broader awareness and understanding of organizational and environmental realities;

2. a more diverse range of options; and

3. full and accurate feedback on our strengths and weaknesses as leaders.  

In upcoming posts, we’ll talk further about each of these costs, strategies to offset them, and how they may be more fully overcome in emerging models of leadership and organization… 

Category: All Posts, Communication, Diversity, Leadership /

Communication problems in traditional organizations

March 29, 2008 / / No comments

The human body-mind can be imagined as a network which both consists of specialized parts and as a seamless whole. Our ability to act in an intelligent and appropriate way as a seamless whole is a function of a massive network of electro-chemical communications. When the environment changes in a meaningful way – for example, the temperature rises beyond a certain point — this information is communicated throughout the body leading to both conscious and unconscious physical adaptive responses, to ensure our ongoing health and wellbeing.

Similarly, in an organizational context, our ability to act in an intelligent and appropriate way as seamless whole is a function of a massive network of communications.  However, unlike our human organism, traditional organizations have a number of built-in impediments to healthy communication: 1) communications flow primarily from the top down; channels for bottom-up communications tend to be very narrow; 2) bureaucratic organizational structure often gives rise to the silo effect; and 3) socialization and organizational power dynamics can work to suppress open communications even at the same organizational level.

If our body-minds suffered from such substantial systemic communication problems, we would not be able to function and would probably not survive very long. For example, although our feet might notice that we are walking on glass, but not pass the message on to the brain. Of course, this is silly; but these kinds of dysfunctions happen in organizations all of the time.

We’ll continue to explore these dynamics in greater depth in upcoming posts, with the purpose of continuing to raise awareness of how unexamined dominator cultural assumptions have created our current set of problems. And, of course, the gift here, is that every problem holds the seeds to its own solution…

Category: All Posts, Communication, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership /

Experience of Right and Left Hemispheres of the Brain

March 22, 2008 / / One comment

Below is a link to an awesome video, in which neuroanatomist Jill Bolte describes alternating experiences of the left and right hemispheres of the brain. 

This is important because in the West, we have extensively developed the left brain, associated with rational sequential thought, and modern organizations and approaches to leadership reflect this orientation.  However, it is the right side of the brain which sees larger patterns and is the source of our creativity, including creative leaps.  Therefore, learning how to integrate these diverse facilities — to draw on our inner diversity — can help us to see new opportunities and solutions to old problems.  

Coaching does just this, and therefore it is increasingly being recognized as a core leadership competency in contemporary organizations. And, there are many more interesting and exciting implications of this insight that we will discuss in this blog…

http://blog.ted.com/2008/03/jill_bolte_tayl.php

Category: All Posts, Coaching, Creativity, Diversity, Innovation, Leadership, Organization, Science /

Riane Eisler and Alfonso Montuori on Women’s Radio!

March 19, 2008 / / No comments

This is a great opportunity to hear Dr. Riane Eisler interview Professor Alfonso Montuori about the new Transformative Leadership program at the California Insitute of Integral Stuides. 

http://www.womensradio.com/content/templates/?a=2229&z=11

Category: All Posts, Creativity, Education, Leadership, Partnership /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee