Respect as an Imperative

I have decided to use my Audible account to listen to books that I typically would not read, but would like to read. Audible is a great way to consume those books that can be a challenge for ‘before bed’ readers such as myself. I just finished Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People. Written in 1936, this book has been a best seller for 80 years. Dale Carnegie courses continue to be widely available.

About once a week, on LinkedIn I see someone reference the research Google conducted which revealed the Five keys to a successful Google team. Item #1 on the list –  psychological safety. Successful groups feel they can take risks without fear of feeling insecure or embarrassment.

A six year study that was released by Harvard Business Review cites the ability to manage conflicting tensions as the most critical predictor of top-team performance. This study showed that teams that debate their ideas have 25% more ideas altogether;  healthy debate is a vital part of their performance.

Recently, I read a another HBR article discussing the turnaround at Campell’s (as in soup) due in large part to focusing on a culture which embraced civility and respect.

I found myself thinking about what unites these stories?  What are the underlying connections? I wondered, how did civility and respect become value that needed to be re-discovered?

___

While the language at times, in Carnegie’s book makes me cringe (like when he uses the terms housewives and cripples), there are core principles that resonate strongly and feel timeless:

  • Give honest and sincere appreciation
  • Be genuinely interested in others
  • Be a good listener
  • Try honestly to see things from the other’s viewpoint
  • If you’re wrong, admit it

What impact would Carnegie’s principles have on increasing psychological safety, as per Googles findings? If you bring a risky new idea forward and your group is both positive on your work and genuinely interested in what you’ve done – will it enhance psychological safety?

If you describe an intriguing new idea to your colleagues who listens carefully and ask curious questions, will you feel more comfortable bringing new ideas forward? Does it create a climate to generate more, creative new ideas? Will it help you explore your dilemma?

If you are in a disagreement with a colleague but feel that they are genuinely trying to see your viewpoint, will you be more likely to be patient, and curious in return?  Will you be more likely to admit you’re wrong, if you decide that you are? Will you find it easier to seek a mutually beneficial solution?

For me, the answer was yes and that Carnegie’s principles would underly healthy, psychologically safe, group dynamics and that they would enable a successful group dynamic that can exploit conflict for greater creativity.

On election day, lineups at the polls were surprisingly lengthy. A gentleman behind me started grumbling about how the feds and the city couldn’t figure out how to run an election, etc. etc.. My first instinct was to offer the civil but disinterested ‘hmmm’ response. However, since I was fresh off a listen to Carnegie, I decided to engage him.  For thirty minutes I asked genuinely curious questions and listened carefully. I confirmed my understandings and offered him positive affirmation. This seemingly grumpy, former municipal worker, told me with enthusiasm about his work with autistic youth, helping these young people build skills to participate in the workforce. Not an easy job but one that energized him. There was so much more to him than first impressions offered and I found myself deeply admiring this man’s work. 

What is the deeper pattern?  What else unites these stories?

As a facilitator, I operate on a set of working assumptions when I work with groups that look something like this:

  • Everyone has wisdom
  • We need everyone’s wisdom for the wisest results
  • There are no wrong answers
  • Everyone will hear and be heard
  • The whole is greater than the sum of the parts 

I start most workshops with these assumptions. I explain the assumptions to the room in a context that says each of you brings importance, perspective and value to the room that is essential for us to accomplish our goals today.  Without your contributions, we will be less successful.

In this manner, I demonstrate my profound respect for the group.

And there it is… the underlying pattern in these stories – the practice of respect. There was my ‘a ha’ moment.  The dictionary defines respect as: “a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements”.  It is our ability to withhold judgement and be open to the qualities of others, which in turn creates a different set of opportunities.

Former Campbell’s CEO, Doug Conant says:

“we’ve observed that the best way to truly win the hearts and minds of people, and generate huge returns for the organization and its stakeholders, is by leading with civility.  This means spending a considerable amount of effort acknowledging people’s contributions, listening better, respecting others’, and making people feel valued.

In a worldwide poll of over 20,000 employees, Christine Porath, co-author with Doug Conanof Campbell’s article found that employees who felt respected by their leaders reported 56% better health and well-being, 89% greater enjoyment and satisfaction, 92% greater focus and prioritization, 26% more meaning and significance, and 55% more engagement.

Individuals offer profound diversity, opportunity is presented by their diversity and possibilities are available to us through dissemination and aggregation of diversity. And it is available to us when we create a climate of respect.

It seems that respect is a bit of a secret sauce.

__

So I like that – respect as secret sauce.  And I am still left with the question of why do we need to re-discover respect as a value? Why has it become harder to find, a bit more shadowy, and a bit more of surprise when we experience it? Why are we excited to state that employees are happier, more productive and healthier in a respectful climate? Why is it news? The questions feels particularly acute in our current digital, social and political climate.

I don’t really have a answer for this – but I happened to listen to a podcast by Farnam Street with Susan Cain author of “Quiet, the power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking.”

Cain mentioned that in the course of her research she discovered that self help books in the 19th century focused on character, virtue and integrity and in the 20th century – charisma, likability and magnetism. It seems that the criticality of character gave way to the importance of likability.

I am hypothesizing that in the 20th century we lowered the importance of how we interact with people in favour of how we look like we might interact with people.  The ‘appearance of‘ became more valued than the ‘behaviour of‘. Perhaps it was more camera friendly. Perhaps it was marketable. I’m sure it was far sexier. I’ve heard it said that many of our most venerated leaders would never have made it through the grinder of the modern media circus as they wouldn’t have been ‘charismatic’ enough.

I’d be curious about the perspectives of others and I think it merits a deeper dive.

In the meantime, I am compelled by the imperative of respect and the need to grow respect always, everywhere – to increase civility, our ability to handle conflict, our ability to embrace diversity and our ability to discover creativity…. and ever more humbly, to increase the enjoyability of lining up at the next election.

 

 

 

Bad acts of facilitation

In the last few weeks I have spoken with several people who have shared recent experiences working with a facilitator. In all cases they have said “the facilitator was not very good”. That catches my attention – what are they referring to?  What is happening when the facilitator isn’t very good? 

Complaint #1:  The facilitator had their own agenda. 

The group believed that the facilitator had an agenda and was maneuvering the group towards an already determined outcome. They felt manipulated, that their input was being selectively considered to match a previously determined outcome.

An essential rule – the facilitator must be neutral. The facilitator can not have a pre-defined ‘answer’. The facilitator may speculate on where the group will go for design purposes, but does not know ‘the answer’. Otherwise, the facilitator is perceived to be in collusion with the organizer and the group will not support the result.

Complaint #2:  We didn’t get anything done.

Two days of gruelling meetings coming to a conclusion with no substantive result. The group’s frustration is boiling over due to the inconsiderate waste of their time.

A facilitator must clearly define the outcome for the meeting. To be clear, it is an outcome such as a decision (we will select an option), not a description of the decision to be made (we will decide if option b is right). Facilitators are responsible for getting crystal clear on the desired outcome for the  meeting. This means detailed discovery discussions with the client. Poor discovery leads to poorly defined outcomes and dissatisfied participants.

Complain #3:  The facilitator talked too much.

The facilitator engaged with the discussion, shared opinions and took space away from participants. Participants were frustrated by the inability of the facilitator to ‘stay out of it’.

This is a common complaint when a subject matter expert is asked to lead a meeting. They have expertise, they want to share. A facilitator is content neutral. They do not have a role in content. Their role is to create the conditions for the people in the room to share their wisdom. Instead of hiring the subject matter expert to facilitate, invite them to participate and hire a content neutral facilitator.

Complaint #4:  The process was convoluted.

The facilitator didn’t have a process that was clear or well understood. Participants didn’t know where they were headed, the discussion seemed random.

This might be the most telling indicator of a non-facilitator. Good process is based on an understanding of group dynamics and how people think. The most involved part of event preparation is planning the appropriate group process. A good facilitator designs conversations to keep a group on track and to avoid random acts of dialogue.

Complaint #5: The facilitator was winging it.

The facilitator seemed to be adjusting their plan on the fly and didn’t really seem to know what was to be accomplished.

A good facilitation has iceberg qualities. Only about 10% of the effort it takes to create a good facilitated event is visible. The ‘submerged’ part of the event is the time taken to discover needs and prepare the right process for the group. It is not to say that a facilitator never changes plans mid-event, because that does happen. When course change is needed, a good facilitator discusses the situation with the group and makes change with the input and the consent of the group.

Remember that a facilitator, as defined by Roger Schwarz the leading academic on the subject, is  “a person who is acceptable to all members of the group, substantively neutral and has no decision-making authority, intervenes to help a group improve the way it defines and solves problems in order to increase the group’s effectiveness.”

I feel physical pain when I hear such complaints. To be an excellent facilitator is to embrace the mindset of a facilitator, to deeply understand the role, to have invested in training, to be expert in core methods and to constantly hone skills. Some people have natural talent for facilitation. All talented facilitators have invested in their skills.

_______________________________

Are you engaging in acts of bad facilitation?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, you may be guilty of bad facilitation:

  1. Weigh in on content
  2. Offer your opinion on the result
  3. Drive a group towards a specific answer
  4. Love being the centre of attention
  5. Wing it (process, schmocess!)
  6. Can’t explain the underlying methods that you’re using

Are you a thoughtful facilitator?

If you answer yes to these questions, you may be a thoughtful facilitator:

  1. Deep respect for the wisdom of the group
  2. Conscientiously neutral and ensuring there is space for all opinions in the room
  3. Keeper and driver of process
  4. Concerned with achieving desired outcomes
  5. Can discuss with you the details of their process and rationale behind them
  6. Have discuss client needs, group dynamics, needed outputs and event objectives, at length

Need to hire a facilitator?

If you’re hiring one for the first time, look for the following:

  1. Professional certification (through IAF, INIFAC or other)
  2. Have formal training  (Technology of Participation, The Art of Hosting, The Skilled Facilitator, Leadership Strategies)
  3. Adhere to professional ethics (see IAF’s code of ethics)
  4. Engage in continuous professional development

 

Our deepest Self, is a verb

“The Self is a relation, which in relating to itself and willing itself to be itself, is grounded transparently in the power that posits it.”  – Soren Kierkegaard

I have been asked to preview some chapters in a book that a facilitator colleague of mine is writing. She is digging deep into the philosophies underlying the Technology of Participation (ToP) facilitation methodologies to preserve them for future practitioners and facilitators.

While I am delighted to be asked to take a look at her first draft, I confess to being a bit overwhelmed by their depth and more than a bit intimidated by the intellectual breadth of the philosophers, such as Kierkegaard from whose ideals, ToP methodologies have been developed.

The founding philosophies of ToP point to the intentionality of being self, and the attentionality of examining self. They say that we exist as a being; but our acts of examining ourselves; relating to ourselves and making intentional choices about ourselves are the essential components of being. To be, to examine our being, allows for growth, discovery and evolution.

What this really means is being ourselves is dynamic – our Self is a verb.

To quote the author, “When I reflect on myself, I am standing outside my self-in-the-world looking at myself as I am in the world. I can observe my activities, characteristics and experience and the ways I have been with others. I can see what is happening around me and I can sense my own reactions to the events in my life.” 

As complex as these ideas are, they allowed me to fully understand why we do things the way we do, when we use the ToP facilitation methods. One of our go to techniques is the brainstorm, where we ask people to generate ideas, and then we put those ideas, one by one, on a wall. Next we examine the ideas, individually and in relationship to other ideas.

Individual brainstorm ideas

This act of removing an idea from its origins and examining it relation to other ideas allows us to step away from our assumptions around that idea which creates space for something new to emerge. We have actively related our ideas to themselves.

In so doing, we end up with new relationships, new interpretations and an evolved understanding. Our initial idea became a verb and turned into something else.

New interpretation of existing ideas

On a more practical level, if, while I am in the middle of a heated discussion with a colleague, I am able to observe my behaviour and understand my feelings, and I can create a new understanding of my actions (my self, relating to itself) and recognize that I don’t want to antagonize my colleague, I can choose a different approach (and willing itself to be itself). In this manner, I can find a new interpretation of my colleague’s actions which will lead me to a different outcome.

A current term for self reflection is mindfulness, the movement, appropriated from ancient Buddhist roots. The practice of mindfulness involves being aware moment-to-moment, of one’s subjective conscious experience from a first-person perspective. In other words, relating self to itself. Mindfulness has gained popularity as a method to handle emotions, by observing and becoming aware of those emotions.

According to Wikipedia “…studies have shown that mindfulness meditation contributes to a more coherent and healthy sense of self and identity”.

Mindfulness also has a relationship to emotional intelligence which says our emotions are part of our social operating system and our first step in becoming more emotionally intelligent is to be aware of our emotions and our relationship with those emotions. Once we have some awareness we can start to work our emotional skills and become more emotionally intelligent.

I’m certainly not an expert on the subject of mindfulness or emotional intelligence, but the relationship between the philosophies which underpin ToP facilitation methods and what we call mindfulness and emotional intelligence appear strongly related to me.

All of this is a long way to say, without this deeper understanding of the underlying philosophy or why the ToP method requires a specific process, it is easy to write the methods off as overly process centric. It is also easy for anyone to think they can run with them after a brief exposure. The reality is that ToP methods require study, practice and reflection in order for a practitioner or facilitator to become highly effective.

Experienced ToP practitioners will tell you that ToP facilitation methods are their go to methods, that very little rivals their effectiveness. Now that I have a deeper understanding of the philosophies, I am ever more committed to my go to methods.

Full disclosure, I am trained by ICA Associates in Canada on ToP methods and find myself wholly absorbed by their depth.  ICA Associates is Canada’s only trainer of ToP methods

 

 

 

 

 

What I believe to be true…

“I’ve been asked to speak on work-life balance at a women’s leadership conference”, said a friend of mine.

In my blunt fashion I said, “Good lord – why are we still asking professional women this question? Why do we assume that women, who are powerful and competent, need answers to this question? How often do we ask men this question?”

Image governs behaviour

In 1956, Kenneth Boulding wrote a book called The Image. In it, he wrote that our behaviours are a reflection of the images that we hold of ourselves. In his words “…what I believe to be true; my subjective knowledge. It is this image that largely governs my behaviour“.  

As events occur, they alter our images and as our image alters we alter our behaviour accordingly. Images are built up as a result of our past experiences. They can be deeply ingrained and are held in place by the messages that reach it. “The meaning of a message is the change which it produces in the image“.  When a message hits an image – it can be rejected; it can add to the image or bolster the image; it can clarify the image; or it can intrude on the image, catalyzing some kind of change, even a revolutionary change. When this revolutionary change happens the image may be re-organized. 

The key element of how the message is received and how it impacts the image is the value screen that a message must pass through. In Boulding’s words “the values are perhaps the most important single element determining the effect of messages on its image”

I was reminded of this model the other day when I realized that if really DO want to be 10 pounds lighter, then my image needs to shift to that of a person who IS 10 pounds lighter (the revolutionary change). I need to filter the allure of the pumpkin scone through a value filter that says “skinny people don’t eat pumpkin scones”.  Then I will triumphantly turn up my nose at said scone. 

If we accept this model, then maybe the question we need to ask professional women is:  “What is the underlying image that we hold, that makes us think we need to keep answering this question? What messages are we receiving that say we don’t know the answer? What values are we filtering our perceptions of work/life balance through?”

 I think this would spark a far more interesting conversation.  

Facilitation for image shift

When facilitators work with groups, they often work within the framework of image shift. A group wants a certain outcome – so what needs to shift, in order to achieve the outcome? If a group wants to be a high performing team – what image do they hold of themselves? What messages are reinforcing the current image, and what values are these messages being filtered through? What are the resulting behaviours? How do these aspects of the image model need to shift to move the group towards its aspirational state? What are the underlying contradictions preventing this shift? 

These are fascinating conversations that groups must navigate as they shift from their current state towards the desired, future state.

Facilitation is an enabling process. 

Too much left brain?

July 21, 2015

In modern society we have highly valued a certain type of person and a certain type of mind – people such as engineers who can analyze data, computer programmers who write code, MBA’s who can crunch numbers. 

This type of individual draws heavily from the left side of the brain – that part of our mind that we understand to be rational, analytic, and logical. The left side of our brain reasons sequentially, excels at analysis and handles words. A person with these strengths is definitely the kind of person you want doing your taxes.   

In contrast, those we have considered ‘right’ brained may be artists who express themselves non verbally, writers who create beautiful images, futurists who see patterns and suggest trends. This type of person draws more heavily on the right side of the brain which is nonlinear, instinctive, it reasons holistically, recognizes patterns and interprets emotions and non verbal expressions. This is someone we want as a coach or counsellor.

In A Whole New Mind, by Daniel Pinkhe summarizes 3 decades of research on the brain’s hemispheres to 4 key differences:

  1. The left hemisphere controls the right side of the body; the right hemisphere control the left side of the body. 
  2. The left hemisphere is sequential; the right hemisphere is simultaneous. 
  3. The left hemisphere specializes in text; the right hemisphere specializes in context.
  4. The left hemisphere analyses details; the right hemisphere synthesizes the big picture.

I have recently facilitated strategic planning meetings with two management teams that had a heavy weighting of technical skills, or what we’d call left brain skills. Our meetings included an workshop where we identify barriers to achieving our desired future state. The process of brainstorming options went well – many ideas were generated. The process of organizing the ideas into clusters went quickly, albeit with a more linear approach to organizing ideas.

Once ideas are clustered, we look for the larger pattern of causation and the deeper meaning. We’re seeking the root of the issue to assign a name to the cluster. This name, then represents the obstacle that requires future attention.  

What a challenge for these left brain-centric teams. 

They struggled to see a larger pattern; they struggled to see context and they struggled to assign larger meaning. The left brain was struggling and there wasn’t enough right brain thinking in the room to offer balance. A certain level of frustration began to arise. Soon the groups began taking a name from one cluster and assigning to another cluster with a small modification, to get the job done – the root of the issue may have been missed.

I happened to read Daniel Pink’s book a week or so later and had a giant eureka moment; to get a left brain crowd to do right brain work was going to require much more instruction, direction and example from the facilitator. The group won’t automatically jump into the more holistic, pattern identification work. It’s not that the group doesn’t have these capabilities, it’s that for these groups, the right brain skills were under developed, in part because we have valued these skills less in our ‘Information Age’. It will be necessary to ‘wake up’ their right brain thinking prior to such an exercise. 

Our brain has two halves that work together, not independently. The left side of the brain hears the words that someone says, the right side creates meaning. Damage to one side of the brain impacts our entire being. We aren’t ‘half brained’ even if we pull on skills associated with one side of the brain more – both sides of our brain work together. 

So, this leaves me asking questions: what are the implications for businesses stacked with left brain thinking? What are the risks for organizations that value sequential thinking over the holistic and pattern thinking? What are the potential impacts to long term success if organizations dissect the problem without synthesizing the bigger picture?

Can a business that values both its ‘right’ and ‘left’ brain be more successful?

… I’d love to hear what you think.   

All fun is not superficial

July 7, 2015

“All fun is not superficial, not everything serious is profound”, says Chris Whitnall from Talkforce.  

Words to live by when you’re a facilitator preparing for a meeting.

Why do facilitators prepare ‘fun’ activities at a meeting?  Why do they make you fly airplanes or play with building blocks? Why does this happen at offsite meetings? Serious money is spent on offsite meetings, shouldn’t we be focused on serious things? 

Neuroscience tells us that our brains easily traverse old neural network paths. These well traveled paths keep us safe; warn us of threats and are in part the reason why we drive to work ‘in a fog’ and get there safely. The neural connections are deeply embedded and regularly traveled. This is also why we are good at post-mortem analysis, forensic examinations, and deductive reasoning – because our brains have been there before.

Solving new problems, creating new ideas, delving into long term visioning, or imaging future states is much harder work for our brains. Our brains need to create new pathways or connect old pathways in new ways which takes a great deal of energy and requires a different catalyst.  

Have you every had a ‘eureka’ moment during your morning shower?  or during a run? Have you woken up part way through the night with a brilliant idea. Have you been talking about something and suddenly experienced a flash of insight on an unrelated matter?  How often have you woken up in the morning with the distinct sensation that you have a solution just below the surface that you can’t quite access… but you know its there. If you can find a way to re-enter that state of semi consciousness you might find it again.  

We’re all familiar with the movie cliche where the brilliant inventor has a massive aha moment, doing something quite fun, or completely unrelated to the problem to be solved. (There’s a great moment in a bar scene in The Imitation Game). 

What you are experiencing or witnessing is examples of new connections being made in your brain; the catalyst has been something that had nothing to do with the subject at hand. A common scenario is that the brain is in a relaxed or calm state and is free to expel energy on new connections.  

Generally, work environments are not very calm. Humour and fun at work allow us to relax, thereby reducing our defensive instincts. When we are less defensive and more relaxed, there is space and opportunity for new connections to be made, for eureka moments to be had, or even more simply, to be open to an new perspective.

Facilitators know this and work ‘creative space’ into meeting planning. There is method in our madness when we ask you to make a paper airplane or build a duck from building blocks. A single exercise may have multiple purposes. 

Offsite meetings are serious money and serious outcomes do need to happen.  A bit of fun can create a climate for serious ideas to emerge.

 

Do facilitation skills help your career?

June 23, 2015

Facilitation skills may be the secret sauce!

I’ve certainly had my share of good and bad moments as a leader and professional, but I think my best moments have happened when I’ve been in a facilitative leader mind set.

Umm.. what?

Merriam-Webster defines facilitator as: “one that helps to bring about an outcome by providing indirect or unobtrusive assistance, guidance, or supervision”. Roger Schwarz defines it as “…substantively neutral… intervenes to help a group improve the way it identifies and solves problems to make decisions”. The International Association of Facilitators (IAF) defines the role in this short short video as part architect, part process driver and part guide.

In summary, a facilitator is one who remains neutral, enables a process, and helps bring about an outcome. To do this, a facilitator must be open minded, transparent, curious, and draw on the expertise of a group. A facilitator believes the a group is capable and competent and able to participate in its own solutions. The problem solving insight comes from the group, not the facilitator. A facilitator also works with a group to jointly design a next step.

While there are many definitions (and this is greatly simplified), leadership is fundamentally about achieving goals and inspiring people along the way by harnessing people power. 

Under these definitions, the overlap between facilitative mindsets and facilitative leadership are more obvious: both are about achieving goals; both are about accessing the knowledge and expertise in the room (organization) and both are about believing in the capacity of the group (team). Many leaders will say they hire good people and get out of their way so that they can do what is needed.

The term ‘facilitative leader’ is used quite frequently by the facilitation community. So what does it mean? A leader with a mindset that says there is wisdom in this room embraces a facilitative style; a leader that ensures everyone has a voice that that every voice is heard demonstrates a facilitative style; a leader that is open and transparent about what they think, why they think it and actively invites alternate viewpoint portrays a facilitative mind set. A leader who listens well, clarifies understandings and tests assumptions acts in a facilitative manner.  

Whether 1:1, 1:several or 1:many – facilitation skills say a lot about whether your leadership style is autocratic, participative, inclusive, or hierarchical. How you handle a group discussion is very illuminating.  

After 25 years in the workforce and many years facilitating, both formally and informally, I’ve come to the conclusion that facilitation skills should be taught in virtually every educational program out there: engineering, science, business, arts, education, etc. How much better would the workplace be if more leaders embraced a facilitative style? 

You are part of the problem

May 31, 2015

Wait – I am not! No way, I am not part of the problem. If he was more co-operative or if she would stop beating a drum, this meeting would not have been hi-jacked. Does this sound familiar? Even a little bit? Even if you didn’t say it out loud?

One of the more eye opening experiences that I have had, was examining
my mindset, as I dissected a facilitation that I had performed. It was surprising, shocking really, to discover how impactful mindset is to the eventual outcome of the facilitation.

As a leader you have heard that you should ask for the views of others before you share your own (in the interests of not biasing the discussion of course); that you should always go into a meeting knowing what you want the outcome to be; that you need to be cautious about being frank with your opinions. The idea of being open, unscripted or unplanned is … well…risky.

As a result, you tend to walk into a meeting with firm ideas of what the ‘script’ will be in this discussion. You may be thinking “I already know the answer” or “I’ll share only what you need to know” or “this group is hopeless”. And when you do, you are driving the meeting down an narrow path.

The casualties of this approach are transparency, curiosity and full participation because your mindset says “I know the best approach”. Participants are thinking “wow – he/she was SOOO not interested in another viewpoint” and suddenly, in spite of your best intentions, you are part of the problem.

As a facilitator and a leader, the notion of transparency as an enabler was a real ‘aha moment’. When you relax your assumptions, state your views and why you think them AND genuinely seek feedback, you add to the knowledge in the room. Your transparency allows people to make informed decisions about what is relevant and what should be shared, increasing the knowledge in the room. Your genuine curiosity encourages participants become accountable for their role in the discussion. You create a climate for more effective discussions. Now – you’re part of the solution.

While the process of self examination was admittedly uncomfortable, there was a liberty that came with being able to say “I might be part of the problem and here’s why I think that. What do you think?”

A great article on this subject by Roger Schwarz who has developed and trains this approach.

Got strategy? Try story telling.

April 30, 2015

A brilliant strategy fails to resonate with the client, in spite of your diligence, analysis and expertise. Why?  

A recent post from Bilal Jaffery spoke to the importance of story telling. Once upon a timeMost marketers, he says, are shouting, not empathizing. Business storytelling misses the point. Messages that are communicated are more reflective of internal process, and fail to capture the hearts and minds of the buyer (client).

While that post was aimed at marketing communicators, the applicability to business strategy was immediately apparent. Timely too – given a recent experience delivering a cleverly crafted, well researched strategy that utilized core work methods and utterly failed to resonate with the client. Ugh! 

Did the client miss the plot? Was it over their heads? Did they not pay attention?  

Maybe. A more likely scenario is that the strategy didn’t tell a story that was client centric. The client couldn’t see themselves in the message. They couldn’t see how it would improve their day to day efforts. Greatness was shouted but empathy for their circumstances was missing. Why should they care about ‘core’ work methods?

If I think about leaders that have most captured my imagination, they have had something in common: story telling. They were communicators with an ability to deliver the dull corporate strategy (think monthly town hall meeting) in a compelling, engaging way. They put their message into a context that I cared about, more importantly they told me why in a way that mattered to me.

It’s worth noting that this concept is also at the core of Simon Sinek’s work “Start with Why”. Too often we lose the plot by being too caught up in what we do or how we do it. We don’t get to the why – ours, or the client’s. 

The moral of this story: if you want the client to ‘get’ your strategy, put it in a story they want to hear. Leave your brilliance for the epilogue!   

                

It’s not the money, it’s the principle

April 14, 2015

We humans are not as evolved as we might like to think, and we instinctively care about fairness.

Research on brain functionality suggests that much of our motivation driving our social behaviour is governed by the principles of avoiding threat and seeking reward. Interestingly, our brain uses the same networks for social interactions as for primary survival needs.

According to David Rock, our primary survival needs are governed by the more primitive parts of our brain and operate in a fairly binary mode: feel good -> move toward reward and feel threat -> move away. Our primitive brain networks process threat and reward cues almost instantly and tell us what is meaningful. The layman would say this is a ‘reflex or instant reaction’. To put this in day to day terms…meeting strangers at a cocktail party activates the same brain networks as if we were being approached by a woolly mammoth…threat is imminent!

The SCARF model (David Rock, 2008) identifies 5 domains of human experience: Status is about relative importance to others. Certainty concerns being able to predict the future. Autonomy provides a sense of control over events. Relatedness is a sense of safety with others and Fairness is a perception of fair exchanges between peopleWhen any of these domains is threatened our primitive avoidance responses kick in (withdrawal, retreat, anger, threat).  Check out his TED talk.  

Fairness is a domain that is particularly acute. In fact, research suggests that fairness is so essential to humans, that we will give up money in exchange for a perceived ‘fairer’ outcome. How many times have you heard the expression “it’s not the money, it’s the principle”;  “it’s not what he did, it’s the principle”.  Fairness is a significant and primitive motivator for people.

In a sports context: a red team plays a blue team.  The red team wins. At the conclusion of the game, the blue team identifies and awards an MVP (most valuable player) to the red team. The player happens to be the coach’s child. The award feels fair. We are happy, we congratulate the MVP.  

On the other hand, if the red team’s coach selects the MVP award and it also goes to his child – it feels unfair. We have an immediate threat response which may be anger, disbelief, or frustration. In these two situations, the outcome is the same but the manner in which the event occurs creates a completely different response from our brain. It’s the principal that counted. Fairness mattered. 

In your day to day office environment, how often is perceived fairness threatened? What effect does it have on dialogue and understanding? What about collegiality? decision making? What can you do to minimize the threat/avoidance response in your team? (spoiler alert – performance reviews are huge ‘threats’ in corporate life).

So what are the implications when facilitating?  How do you encourage people to share openly and freely? How do you prevent someone from feeling threatened and ‘shutting down’? If you spot someone demonstrating signs of feeling threatened, what can you do to make it neutral or rewarding? 

This is a key reason facilitated workshops spend time on icebreakers, warm ups and introductions. We are less ‘threatened’ when someone is no longer a stranger. Another techniques is to record the words of people ‘as is’;  avoid paraphrasing and repeat as many specific words as possible. This ensures people feel heard, thereby lowering threat response.

I’d love to hear from you – what do you do, in your meetings, workshops, 1:1’s to reduce the ‘threat’ response?  

Sources:  

David Rock

http://www.your-brain-at-work.com/files/NLJ_SCARFUS.pdf

Social Neuroscience, SCARF Model and Change Management

http://thehypertextual.com/2013/04/23/social-neuroscience-scarf-model-and-change-management/