Archive for Culture

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 Includes an “I-Thou”

August 8, 2008 / / No comments

Another valuable post from Steve March that is pertinent to the philosophy and embodiment of Partnership: http://stevemarch.typepad.com/on_living/2008/08/the-body-of-s-1.html

Category: All Posts, Culture, Partnership, Philosophy, Values /

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 /

Example: How a shift in perspective can shift a situation

July 26, 2008 / / One comment

We are all hardwired to respond to subtle social cues. Smiles, laughter, yawning — are all contagious. Studies have shown that when we are in tune with others we unconsciously adapt our body/language to be compatible with theirs.

This unconscious mimicry of physical expression tends to invoke a similar emotional or psychological effect: Someone smiles at us and we smile back; their good feeling becomes our good feeling. To test this premise, smile now and notice how it lifts your spirits. (It feels great and it’s also good for you: professor of psychology Barbara L. Fredrickson hypothesizes that positive emotions can help undo the damaging effects of stress.) This mimicry is considered a biological/psychological/sociological foundation of empathy.

A colleague shared an insight from her own experience. In contrast to her husband, who is outspokenly judgmental, “Barbara” has always kept her thoughts to herself. However, as she has become more aware of her own faults, she had become less judgmental and more compassionate towards others: her perspective changed, and her thoughts and quality of being followed.

Because she had never shared her thoughts, she had assumed that this “internal” shift was completely private, until a family member appreciatively noted how much less judgmental she is “nowadays.” Although she had never said a word, her attitudes had come through in her body language, eyes — her whole presence. And, that had affected the way that people felt around her.

It’s easy to imagine how Barbara’s earlier judgments might have created some subtle or not-so-subtle distance in those relationships, and how this distance would have made it more likely that she would continue to judge and find fault; it can also lead to others judging her negatively in turn: “She is always frowning at me!”

In turn, her new attitude of compassion has clearly strengthened her relationships, creating a more positive dynamic. Although the analogy of dance might be a bit over used today, we might imagine that they are all doing a different dance together. This is about more than feeling good (a good in itself): putting on our practical “ends-oriented” hat, we can also notice that the before and after situations have very different potentials, for example, in terms of what the participants might accomplish together.

Similarly, as leaders, our perspectives and thoughts affect the way we “show up,” the dynamics of the situation, and ultimately, its potential.

This is something we all already “know” from our own experience. However, our cultural emphasis on “doing” often blinds us to how a shift in our perspective (“our being”) can transform a situation in ways that no amounts of “doing” under the old paradigm could accomplish…

Practice
1. Begin to notice how the way other people “show up” affects you, and how you are inclined to “show up” with them.

2. After you have some experience with practice #1, you might begin to notice how differences in the way you “show up” affects others and the situation. A constructive experiment, if you are not already doing this regularly, would be to practice actively looking for the positive in others and notice how it shifts the dynamics of the relationship and situation.

Please feel free to share your experiences here.

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

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 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 /

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 /

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 /

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 /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee