If you are interested in how Partnership approaches to leadership can unleash collaborative power in the workplace, I encourage you to check out Cynthia King’s Creating Partnerships: Unleashing Collaborative Power in the Workplace (2005).
See more at: http://www.creating-partnerships.com/
More from Carman de voer:
Great questions Lisa, Perhaps I could begin to address them through a practical illustration:
I recently heard about a professional bureaucracy that is experiencing high turnover of its trainees—which, in such an organization, is surprising given the time, money and personnel allocated to training. Furthermore, neophytes exhibit enormous enthusiasm and commitment.
In terms of the brain metaphor (cybernetics) the organization could pursue the following:
Ask questions:
1) What is it about our culture that contributes to high turnover? What do trainees tell us (via exit interviews)? How might the workload exceed the limitations of trainees? What kind of treatment do trainees receive once on the job? Is it civil or uncivil? In other words, surface noxiants.
Avoid noxiants: (set limits on undesirable behavior):
2) Don’t browbeat. Don’t overload (with information). Don’t exceed the capabilities of trainees. Don’t impose unreasonable deadlines. Don’t proscribe social [professional] interaction with co-workers.
Morgan says: “Cybernetics shows us that effective management depends as much on the selection of the limits that are to be placed on behaviour as on the active pursuit of desired goals” (p.99)
I would like to further delve into your questions tomorrow Lisa (I’m off to work now).
Bye for now!
In short, there is no master, centralized intelligence. The brain, says Morgan, “is linked to quasi-independent processes linked to a minimal set of key rules making the whole system appear to have an integrated, purposeful, well-coordinated intelligence.”
This makes sense to me. The intelligence of a symphony orchestra for example, is not confined to the conductor but is rather “distributed” throughout the system. I suggest that society has overstated the role of the brain and understated the integrated functioning of the rest of the body. The separation of “brain” (manager) and “hand” (worker) is a popular practice in organizations. Viewing the entire organization as “brain” however, might be more productive (and realistic).
Your thoughts?
In Western culture, we tend to be inclined to believe in and aim towards static and desireable future. In myths and fairy tailes, our heroes’ and heroines’ journies end in a static, experientially eternal state of bliss or pain. This is also a theme of monotheistic religions, which have shaped our worldview over the past several thousand years: life is often viewed as a journey to an eternity which is often painted as either homogenously wonderful or awful.
Such stories often shape our deepest and oldest beliefs and expectations of life. For example, I’ve known never-married women and men who believe that, if they find and marry the right person, that their lives will be happy and fulfilled ever after. Similarly, many Americans dream of a good retirement in which we will be passed all of the travails of our lives, and live our golden years in health, safety and fulfillment. Heaven is a place where we can lean back, wipe our brow, and finally exclaim, “We made it!”
As a result, we may be tempted to live for and in the future — for “someday.”
Intellectually, however, we know that it is never “someday”; it is always today. When we reach the top of the mountain, there is a new vista, and from that vista we set new goals. Life, in other words, is an ongoing process. Myths and fairy tales are only able to maintain the illusion of future permanence by drawing a curtain at the end of the tale. If they continued to follow the characters through the remainder of their lives, we would find that life is characterized by change. When a biological organism stops changing, we can be sure that it is dead. Similarly, in the bigger picture, our cosmos also continues to change and evolve.
Along the same lines, we might observe that life isn’t composed of two parts, non-eternity and eternity: Logically, infinity plus 100 years (a nice, long human lifespan) still equals infinity. Therefore, to the degree that we acknowledge eternity, we might notice that eternity doesn’t start “later”; rather, here we are ….
It is human nature (and no doubt the nature of life in general) to move towards greater fulfillment. Studies have shown that the happiest people are those who feel they are making progress towards a goal. Imagining and living in the present, towards a desireable future is a necessary and fulfilling part of life.
However, our old, deep rooted belief in “ever after” can lead us, instead, to live “for the future,” effectively postponing our lives and preventing us from living fully in the present.
One manifestation of living for the future is an over-reliance on “left-brain” intellectual busyness and/or will power. Aside from draining the joy and vitality from life, this posture makes us less effective in the present. For example, we may become less aware of opportunities in the here and now, and also less creative.
Therefore, I submit that it would be a lot more fruitful if we began to think of success as a verb. Certainly there are goals to achieve, but if we think of success as a process, we open up more possibilities for effectiveness, creativity and enjoyment in the now. And, if as leaders, we can create environments in which success is a verb, we will increase intrinsic motivation (which we know is far superior than extrinsic motivation) for ourselves and others.
Our cultural belief in “ever after” is an example of a subterranean belief — a belief that tends to exist and operate below that level of our conscious awareness. These beliefs can either support us in living towards our desireable future or they may block us. Because, as a coach, I’m interested in helping people achieve their fulfilling success, we will talk in much greater depth in this blog about these subterranian beliefs and how they shape our present (including how they can keep us on our “wheel of fear”).
For today, we might ask consider the question, what is our idea of success? Is it a static place defined by certain accomplishments or acquisitions, at which we hope to someday arrive (only to notice that that line and place keeps moving)? Or is it an attitude of living fully in the present, while continually moving in the direction of our heart’s desire?
Reflection
* Imagine success as a destination in the future. What emotions does that concept bring up for you? How present do you feel in your body? How present are you to your immediate surroundings and possibilities?
* Now imagine success as an orientation, a way of being in the present towards fulfilling goals. How would you live differently? How would your quality of life differ?
One of my mentor-coaches, Lou D’Alo www.powerupcoaching.com signs his emails with the phrase, “To your fulfilling success.” I really appreciate this phrase, because it expresses a Partnership approach to success that encompasses both our qualititative experience — happiness and fulfillment — and our quantitiative results. It feels richer and more complete.
An activity or state of being is especially fulfilling when we are living according to our inspired purpose, which encompasses our special gifts — those activities that give us joy.
Whereas the term success has come to mean a kind of material and social status, a kind of cultural goal, or “should,” the expression “your fulfilling success” involves thriving in your own particular way — living the life and making the contribution that only you can make. When this becomes our way of life, and when we support others in living their own fulfilling success, we are living in Partnership.
In this blog, we will be continuing to explore concepts and ideas that support your fulfilling success.
Questions for Exploration
* What does the term “success” feel like to you? How do you envision it?
* How does the term “fulfilling success” feel like to you? What does it look like for you?
* What are the differences between the two for you?
* What possibilities or concerns arise for you as you contemplate the difference?
As a brief departure from our current discussion, I recently heard that when we are regularly interrupted by ringing telephones, email announcements, and visitors, that our IQ drops by about 10% – the same level of impairment found in people who are under the influence of marijuana. The colleague who shared this information with me joked, “All of the impairment, none of the benefits.”
Most of us who have worked in an environment with frequent interruptions know that it materially affects our productivity, as well as our stress levels. It is the oppositive of the flow state, in which we tend to be extraordinarily effective.
In our current age, which has been called the information or innovation age, the success of our organizations depends on the intelligence, creativity and effectiveness of people, who are many times also the biggest investment of the firm. How can we make sure that our organizational members are as creative and effective as possible?
Some time and activity management experts recommend that we cultivate the habit of setting aside uninterrupted work time on a regular basis, to make progress on our most important projects — that we schedule appointments with ourselves in the same way that we schedule them with others. The key is to let people know when you will be responding to email and phone calls.
Yet, some corporate cultures do not support this practice, prefering that its members always be available for questions at any time. (It would be interesting to compare their results with organizations that manage this issue more strategically!)
What is your experience? What practices work well for you?
Especially given the turmoil in the markets in recent days, it seems to be good timing to return to the subject of how we can leap off the “hamster wheel of fear” — a self-perpetuating negative cycle — and onto our wheel of creative freedom. Recently, I had the privilege to watch a presentation by certified hypnotherapist, Monica Justus, CHt. Ms. Justus invited a volunteer from the audience, a local business owner with a technical background whom I would consider a skeptical person, and demonstrated the effect of thoughts and words on our physical and mental strength.
For the demonstration, she asked him to extend his arm straight out to the side, which he did. She then asked him his name, which he answered truthfully. She pressed down strongly on his extended arm, but it remained strong and in place, demonstrating strength. She then asked him to respond to the question in a way that was not true. Strikingly, his arm weakened, and she was easily able to push it down. I’ve since used this demonstration in a training situation — it works.
It appears that when we speak our truth, we are, in fact, stronger.
Ms. Justus went on to test the effect of positive and negative words and concepts. The words “love” and “peace” tested “strong.” The word “war” caused his arm to go weak.
We spend most of our days thinking and communicating with others. What is the quality of our thoughts? Do we think self-defeating and fearful thoughts that weaken us, or do we look for the positive in ourselves and our situation? Do we see problems or opportunities?
And, are we living and speaking our truth or supressing our true thoughts out of fear? (On this note, I don’t advocate reckless, controlling, or inconsiderate speech. However, if your situation does not safely permit you to express your perspective, it may be worthwhile to consider how you might alter your situation).
Choosing what makes us stronger, including our truth, and a constructive perspective is a key to shifting off the wheel of fear, and onto our wheel of creative freedom. More on this later!
In our last post, we talked about working harder and longer as a mainstream cultural approach to dealing with a threat (or challenging environment). Those who have been reading this blog for a while may recognize this pattern as a common “wheel of fear.” This response is so common as to appear commonsensical. When the going gets tough, the tough don’t slough off, right?
This kind of response is very appropriate in certain kinds of situations. Our body-minds respond to perceived threats to life and limb by firing up adrenaline that can be used for “fight or flight” — a physical response. We draw upon our reserves to deal with the immediate threat. Organizations and nations do this as well. Of course, this is not sustainable, and if overused, can lead to personal and collective burnout. In burnout, our ability to respond becomes drastically reduced. Using the common analogy, a stress response can help a sprint and hurt a marathon.
A second distinction that becomes important is whether we are dealing with a simple task or with complex problems, which require a creative response. Our present age has been referred to as the “innovation age” in that innovation has become the engine of growth. Innovation — creative problem solving — is also crucial in an age of continous change. Under these conditions, the stress response can actual impair a creative and effective response to complex problems.
A study by David Beversdorf and Jessa Alexander in the department of neurology at Ohio State University demonstrated that people under stress perform slightly better on memory tests; however, they performed more poorly on complex problems requiring flexible thinking: “When individuals [under stress] are faced with a challenging task, they are less likely to perform well in complex situations.” (Graham qtd. in Brown, 2004)
If our “commonsensical” response to a stressor is to engage in behaviors that decrease our effectiveness, we are on our self-perpetuating “wheel of fear.” Clearly, the only way out is “counter-intuitive” behavior — our “wheel of creative freedom.” So, continuing to build our toolkit for our wheel of freedom, when under stress, we might consider and experiment with some of the following counter-intuitive suggestions:
* Make haste by not being in a hurry.
* The more we take it easy, the more we accomplish.
* The more overwhelmed we are, the more we need to take a break.
I’d love to hear your experiences …
References
Brown, Steve. “Stress Stifles Creativity, Study Shows.” The Latern (Online). 11/10/04. Retrieved from:
http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2004/11/10/Campus/Stress.Stifles.Creativity.Study.Shows-799647.shtml
Time has flown, as it does when our schedules are full. For me, the past three weeks have been filled with a lot of work and a some necessary relaxation, or as some call it, “human being.” Given that, in this blog, we have been in the midst of constructing our “wheel of creative freedom” and that I’m just now returning from taking a few weeks away from my blog, it seems timely to talk about the relationship between being and creativity.
Mainstream American culture has always valued industry, and this value is reflected in the process and culture of our organizations. As Americans, we tend to link our prosperity to hard work; further, we tend to think of work as a good in itself. Work is seen as virtuous. This value is rooted in religion: The Protestant work ethic, sometimes called the Puritan work ethic, is based on the Calvinist sensibility that hard work is godly and that success is a sign of design favor. On the other hand, sloth is considered one of the seven deadly sins.
We are a workaholic culture and proud of it. And so, when we are under threat, when we have an urgent problem to solve, we tend to work all the harder. The rational ego and will override our needs for rest, for play, for relaxation, and depending on our field, we might work 50, 60, 80, 100 hours a week.
This strategy can work well in the machine age, and it can work well in sprints; but how well does this strategy work in the innovation age? in a marathon? As it turns out, it works less well. We’ll talk more about this and its counter-intuitive implications in upcoming posts…