Hearing Differences, Building Reputations

Competing monologues do not constitute a dialogue

Ten days ago a delegation of about  15 people kept an arranged appointment with their local MP (Member of Parliament) at his electorate office, to voice their concerns about a current New Zealand Government initiative.

Each time the visitors spoke, he interrupted to explain and defend his Party’s position, or to rebut their concerns by deflecting talk to other issues, and telling speakers they were mistaken or uninformed.

I heard about this from one of the group, annoyed about what she regarded as the MP’s arrogant and disrespectful behaviour:

We aimed to make a dignified presentation of our position and all we wanted from him was evidence that he’d heard and understood it.  He listened only to create an opening for his own views. His questions were disguised statements. He couldn’t get rid of us soon enough.  We left with no confirmation that he’d actually heard us.

[It hadn’t helped that as the delegation arrived, the MP had begun eating his lunch sandwich, though he offered the visitors no refreshments.  Getting Offside with the Constituents 101, I’d have thought.]

The MP had listened well enough to find opportunities to present his own position, but he was hearing impaired.  He made a common error, the guidelines for which go something like this:

When faced with evidence of a difference in human perspective and values, first find opportunities to refute, contradict,  point out the logical flaw and disprove the other’s position. 

[Although I do not know for certain, it would be surprising if members of the delegation had not made the same error in the face of the MP’s own wish to be heard and understood.]

That kind of behaviour often lies behind intractable conflict with staff or between colleagues, and the “inability to get on with my manager”.  It very quickly (a) inflames the original speaker who then assumes that to be heard, the intensity and volume of their argument must be increased;  or (b) causes the speaker to abandon the dialogue in disgust or despondency.

Thus do simple differences of opinion become gaping divides, and disagreements transform into flaming rows.

Today I called my friend to ask how many people she had told about the MP’s “arrogance”.  She estimated twenty at least, and knew of two others in the delegation who had told as many.

Let’s see:  if 12 people in the delegation have each reported this to, let’s say 15 others . . . that’s 180.  And if 125 of those have repeated the story to seven others . . .  that’s 1,055 people (in 10 days so far) who were not at the original meeting but can now add this information to whatever other knowledge they have of this MP’s  reputation.

All the MP needed to do to impress as many people favourably, and gain a reputation as someone with whom an open exchange of views is possible, safe and a respectful process, was question his visitors thoughtfully to clarify meanings, and accurately paraphrase their viewpoints to reflect and show complete understanding.  It’s likely that they may then have been open to hearing his position. A constructive dialogue could then have ensued, not shut down.

I say “all that was necessary . . .” but I know from my interpersonal skills training work with managers and leaders over many years, that these are rare workplace skills.  Far too many people don’t have them – or don’t use them when they’re needed.  Happily, developing good practices is a simple matter.  Simple but not necessarily easy, as hard work is usually required.

Could you benefit from a comprehensive interpersonal communication practices audit, or support to develop better listening skills?  Visit this page at Thriving-Workplace.com to find out.

As a footnote, my friend reported that when she led a small delegation to a local Regional Authority a few days later, her party was received graciously, questioned thoughtfully, paraphrased accurately and promised feedback on the effects of their submissions.  She named the officials, whose reputation for trustworthiness has thus been much enhanced.

It’s not rocket surgery.

Got a minute . . ?

Yes, of course . . , is the usual and expected response when someone asks that question as they drop-in with a query, a problem or a story they want to share.  And why not?

Because to do so contradicts a basic rule of successful priority management. Two of them, in fact:

Yielding to unscheduled interruptions without first checking their importance, and attending to unsorted tasks in the order they catch the attention contribute, eventually, to overdue and time-critical projects, to fire fighting, emergencies and crises.  It’s how we fail to keep the Main Thing the main thing.

“Got a Minute . . ?” is usually an opening gambit or a code for what may actually mean, “I’d like you to help me clarify or work through something, or persuade you to a point of view; or have you listen a piece of gossip; or agree with a gripe I have  . . . however long it takes. And I haven’t considered how long that might be.”

It may really take only one minute but it’s often much longer.

I’ve trained myself to respond to the inquiry with questions designed to clarify the request or with statements designed to indicate my current limits:

• How urgent is this?  (Which allows me to consider adjusting my priorities to take account of others’.)
• How much time do you (really) need?
• I have five minutes (or three or two or twenty).  Will that do?
• No.  I’m not available right now but I’ll have 15 minutes at . . . 

To treat others’ needs with the same respect and to model constructive practices, I’ve also trained myself to first take care to clarify my intentions, and to realistically estimate my needs.  I like to make my first question, Are you interruptible . . ?  If so, I follow-up with:

• I want to discuss X . . . with you,  to Y . . . 
• I’m working on X . . and need to involve you in the Z part of it . . .
• How soon can you give 20 minutes (or 10 or 15) for this?

These are very simple techniques but not easy to apply if you’ve habituated yielding unquestioningly to Got a minute . . . ?  Acquiring a new habit takes discipline and continual practice.

They also apply to meetings. Far too frequently, workplace meetings begin with an unclear purpose (which is quite different from a meeting’s agenda), little thought to their agenda or the order of agenda items, and often with no consideration to an appropriate duration:

Can we meet at 2pm?  I’d like to go over your progress with the X project.

We have a regular a team meeting on Mondays at 10am.

Let’s get together this afternoon to check-in with one another about work in progress.

Taking a moment to consider (i) where requests for meetings fit within our Bigger Picture and Main Thing; and (ii) requesting greater clarity or providing it ourselves, can save a lot of valuable time.

Try one or more of these practices, this week.  Set out to create new habits, wherever you can.

You’ll find detailed guidelines for these topics at, www.Thriving-Workplace.com.    These days, 80% of the resources there are available at no cost and no subscription is necessary; you may dip-in at any time.

Here are some suggestions, related to the topic of saving time:

• Manage Priorities, not Time (eight pages) includes a discussion of The Main Thing.
•  Articles (nine of them) on improving the quality of meetings (includes a Meeting Planner and a planning template).
•  Setting Limits and Holding Boundaries – within the Interpersonal Communication pages of the site, to which payment of either a $US30 or $US45 fee provides full access.

Tom Watkins

That’s the problem – right there

We met on a short plane ride.  Turned out he lived and worked near my town.  And what do you do, he asked?

Whenever that’s pretty much the opening gambit I’m tempted to answer, My best . . , but that would’ve been unfriendly; he was merely making conversation and I was glad to go along.

I spoke of my work helping organisations and teams improve productivity by focusing more than the usual 5-10% of their efforts on methodically developing individual and collective capacity for effectiveness . . . of how this can avoid an extraordinary waste of human energy . . . and of how it’s often like suggesting people stop to sharpen the blunt tools they’re using and being told, Can’t stop . . .  too busy.

As his eyes began glazing over, I invited him to talk about his work.  (Men are so predictable.)

He spoke of recent developments in his professional field and the challenges he faced in bringing about focus, motivation and cohesion among his staff . . .   developing them while under a constantly increasing workload . . . reducing tension, friction, cynicism and resentment . . . delegating work to people who  are already overwhelmed . . . doing anything really well when everything is urgent and important.

As we landed, I offered him my business card.  He said Ah . . .  OK . . .  I’m a Team Leader . . . I’ll give this to our HR Manager.

There’s the problem. Too many leaders believe that their responsibility for developing staff ends with a focus on their organisation’s primary purpose (hard stuff); that developing individuals’ capacity for that purpose and for working cohesively with others on it (the so-called soft stuff), is something that HR should take care of.   They’ve got it entirely wrong.

They don’t realise that their own improvisational approaches to managing priorities, plans, decisions, problems, delegation, team development, workplace relationships, coaching practices and their own stress levels, cause many of their everyday challenges.

They don’t see the potential for efficiency and effectiveness in developing them in others – especially by modelling better practices themselves.

If my fellow traveller checks out my Thriving-Workplace.com resources website, he’ll find that 80% of the resources for leadership and self-management practices are now available at no cost.  He can freely download them. You too. No subscription is necessary.

A new Thriving-Workplace service is available, at modest fees, for interpersonal communication and relationship management skills development; it starts with a comprehensive self-assessment process.

New Thriving-Workplace material is added continually, arising from our own and others’ workplace research. To keep up to date, stay subscribed to this blog: I’ll let you know when there are new postings. Pass them on.

These, for instance, are recent additions:

Delegation

Developing the PA Role and Leader-PA Relationship

What’s Wrong With Our Meetings?

You can access them here:  http://www.thriving-workplace.com/start.html

Imperturbability Amidst Adversity & Uncertainty

I was in Christchurch (New Zealand) during the severe February earthquake, lunching downtown with my grandson when the city fell apart.  Injuries and death occurred within 100 metres of us in every direction.  It was an intense experience providing many opportunities to observe human responses to crisis, hardship, confusion and uncertainty. 

Initially, most uninjured people appeared stunned.  Many were hysterical or immobilised. Some were so narrowly focused that they seemed unaware of other people or the bigger picture.  Others quickly overcame their initial shock and became methodically purposeful, either for their own safety or helping to bring about order, safety and helpful guidance to many others.

The café staff rose above considerable personal distress to give urgent support to a colleague, attend to shocked customers, and calmly help people see how they needed to move to safety.  Their composure and staying in role while following predetermined procedures, was remarkable.

On the street, ordinary people tended to those in trouble.  Passers-by took up point-duty and kept traffic moving to the few open roads.  Workers checked and marked hundreds of crushed vehicles “Clear” or otherwise, long before I’d considered the probabilities this signalled.  When I became separated from my grandson, a police officer helpfully stood with him until I returned.  Improvised ambulances appeared. Emergency services mobilised.  Small and great acts of courage and kindness were everywhere.

Much of what I learned or had reinforced from this experience and later from the stories of Christchurch families at our home further north as temporary “refugees”, has wide application:

If you don’t have a well-honed, pre-determined generic response to a crisis or challenging situation you’re likely to be hopelessly adrift in the middle of one.  Things can’t go according to a plan you don’t have.

If your normal tendency is to wing-it or make it up along the way, understand that this habit becomes increasing difficult and sometimes impossible in emergencies.

If you don’t already know what to do when you experience real misfortune or hardship, you’d better practise containing things – with processes for managing your distress, maintaining clear-thinking, good problem-solving, stress-reduction and strategising – so that you don’t freak out, spin out, lash out or fall apart when the ground shifts under you; so that you can be comfortable with long periods of uncertainty.

Methodical processes provide consistency and can be trusted to bring clarity, well-coordinated cohesion and helpful progress – at any time but especially where there is disorder or confusion. When groups work within them, people share an awareness that informs participation and eases collaboration and efficiencies.

Recently I’ve observed three businesses dealing with exceptional difficulties – one methodically and well; two of them improvisationally with damaging consequences. They differently demonstrate the wisdom of habituating before they are needed in a dilemma, agreed  management operating systems for exercising leadership, organising, planning-and-managing-plans, solving problems, making decisions, managing priorities, responding to others’ distress, resolving conflicts, working together, and for getting the best from teams. [The resources of my website Thriving-Workplace.com address and provide guidelines for these matters.]

But it doesn’t take dramatic events to understand how crisis-ready our organisations are.  Every contact with them provides insights into how methodically they and their constituents behave.  In most, there are massive gaps currently filled with improvisation, and un-preparedness for adversity and uncertainty.  Until leaders get serious about systematically learning from and continuously improving their organisations’ everyday activities, improvisation will predominate.  In a tight-spot, they’ll struggle to act wisely.

From their earlier earthquakes in the previous five months, Christchurch people learned a good deal about methodical preparation.  I am deeply grateful.

On the Same Page?

“It’s not rocket science. It’s everyone being on the same page and doing it well.”

[Richie McCaw, current captain of the All Blacks (New Zealand’s national rugby team) commenting on his team's latest major challenge, 11 September 2010.]

A merger-in-progress of two large service groups is struggling to achieve its intentions. The distinctly different organisational cultures are not a natural mix; each has a long history of operating idiosyncratically in separate regions, serving distinctly different demographics with strong local loyalties and attachments, and of growing their own responses to unique local problems over many years. Their leadership and management practices appear to be entirely dissimilar. Poles apart, people say. Chalk and cheese.  Oil and water.

What’s happening within this project has many lessons for everyday leadership, management and self-management practices.  In short:

Well-honed, generic personal and group management operating systems can provide clarity where there is confusion, wisdom in the midst of disorder, and procedural certainty when we don’t know what to do. Acquiring them should never become a matter of urgency.  If you don’t routinely hone and habituate them, don’t expect to access them easily in difficult times when they’ll be vitally important and urgent. When there is no reliable map, use your management operating systems as your compass.  Check its alignment with others’ compasses.

The merger in question is a forced marriage; neither party has a natural inclination to join forces but they are required to bring about a wide range of services operating seamlessly over a large geographic span at a number of different sites.  Senior managers are seriously alarmed by the level of challenge ahead.  Some despair at the prospect and the lack of progress.  Several key players predict an expensive and messily irresolvable impasse.

Much frustration centres on the difficulty of “. . . getting them [their counterparts in the other organisation] to understand what’s important and what’s required for this to work.  They can’t keep doing it the way they’ve been used to, because that doesn’t and won’t work here.”

They are not even close to being on the same page.  They’re reading and quoting from different books, written in languages incomprehensible to the other.  And the difficulties are hugely magnified (in the order of trying to swim through molasses) when the required progress is attempted in discussions between and amongst groups rather than between individuals.

I don’t know if this merger should be attempted and whether or not it will succeed. [Though I have an opinion about it and forced mergers generally:  see Reorganising and Squandering, my earlier blog.]  However, I’ve observed by working closely with some of the key people, many of the usual suspects for organisational dysfunction.  Attending to them would help the parties get closer to making headway, in the same book if not exactly on the same page.  Here’s a discussion about three of those, the most obvious likely suspects:

1. People focus on tangible goals, tasks, implementation plans and other “practical” agenda while making untested, unsafe assumptions about basic processes (personal and group management operating systems, for example) for developing capacity and working together.

Assumptions are suppositions or premises incorporated into thinking and regarded as true. If made unawarely, reached without positive proof, or not tested with others presumed to also hold them, they may be entirely invalid and lead to misdirection, confusion, conflict, blocked progress, inappropriate conclusions, unwise plans and initiatives.[See Clarify and Test the Working Assumptions, in the Leadership or Teamwork sections of Thriving-Workplace.com.] Many unsafe assumptions are being made in this case.

I’ve asked leaders involved in this merger, Does your work on this project include solving problems, making decisions and plans, trying to form teams, resolve conflict and run constructive meetings? Yes, of course, they tell me, recognising that these processes are generic and fundamental to their merger initiatives and everyday work.

I’ve then asked, Have you determined for yourself, the models or conceptual frameworks and assumptions you make about these matters for your work on the merger project?  Have you raised those assumptions for discussion with your counterparts with a view to reaching agreement on appropriate processes – or at least to acknowledging and working around the differences? The answer to these questions, universally and unfortunately, is No.

Of course, those who haven’t yet deliberately honed and habituated constructive operating systems of that kind in their day-to-day work will, of course, find it difficult or impossible to do so.  Especially when those practices are most required – where differences are at their peak, tension and feelings are running high, and the consequences of misjudgement and failure are particularly serious. They can expect unnecessary complications and problems – although these can be significantly eased, by shifting focus.  [See a discussion of meta-level leadership in Lead, Manage & Strengthen Your Leadership Practices, at the Leadership section of Thriving-Workplace.com.]

My questions are intended to help bring important unconscious assumptions to awareness. I remind my clients that not all those assumptions need be addressed at once; just those that are most basic, pertinent and pressing.  Methodical Priority Management suggests they should always be within the Never Urgent, Always Important practices category.  [See Manage Priorities, Not Time in the Self-Management section of Thriving-Workplace.com.]

Making unwise and unsafe foundational assumptions appears to be commonplace in every workplace at the start-up for example, of working-parties, project work, teamwork, meetings, planning and strategic planning, problem solving and change initiatives.  As with house-painting, careful preparation is often tedious but everything applied to a poorly-prepared foundation is wasted effort.

2. Managers and leaders often have perfect hearing, but their listening is seriously impaired. In their interpersonal and relationship management practices, they tend to present, describe, explain, advocate for, justify or defend positions, rather than listen to one another to hear and understand differing perspectives – especially to resistance, concerns and anxiety about change. They tend to push predetermined solutions, or to solve problems by arguing about solutions, rather than hear and explore challenges, issues and their causes. People on the receiving-end often become more solid in their opposition to what is proposed.  Opportunities to build trust, respect and understanding are lost.

When I know that whatever I say and however I say it, you will honour, explore, ask questions to elicit details, and reflect and demonstrate your understanding of my intentions until you have it right – you clarify, develop and illuminate my thinking and you gain my trust.

When you engage in discussions about problems with high-quality listening and within a methodical problem solving framework, you facilitate (ease) the process.  Solutions arrived at this way are likely to deal with root causes, endure, and not cause further problems.

That high-quality active listening and good-sense problem-solving processes are far from routine in interpersonal and group relationships, ought to be plain to anyone capable of paying attention to process as they also engage in workplace tasks and agenda.  Trouble is, few make the effort to bring these practices to awareness and many are unconsciously incompetent in their application.  I am often shocked by how unaware are managers and leaders of their skill levels in this regard.  Possibilities for real colleagueship can be vastly enhanced by a determination to change this. Enhancing these skills is simple, though not necessarily easy.  How well do you listen?  How do you know?

3. There is no clear Big Picture or strategic direction to guide other plans, other than a loosely-stated broad intention. There is very little methodical planning, a great deal of improvisation and many unclarified assumptions made about the planning process.

It’s common for organisations, leaders, managers, groups and teams to behave as though planning is a matter of tossing ideas around, arguing about them under the misconception that they are ‘problem-solving”, “brainstorming” and “reaching consensus”, and then somehow prioritising them as a lightly-sketched list of actions. Although this sort of improvisation may succeed, its progress is frequently marked by the eventual need to revisit the issues from scratch or by having to undo things already done.

Things won’t go according to a plan you don’t have.  [Don’t get me started! See the many discussions and guides on this topic in the Planning section of our subscriber library at Thriving-Workplace.com.]

Merger and restructuring initiatives as conventionally practised often involve trying to do the wrong thing (that is, business as usual without regard to the causes of systemic problems), better (that is, with reduced resources and fewer people).  The people in these organisations who lack the ability to resist or influence the process will live through slow motion catastrophes.  Those who can influence it, hold extraordinary potential for developing everyone’s capacity.

Best Laid Plans Challenge Convention

During discussion about concerns that some staff spend too much work-time at a downtown café, Andrew asked, “Why not open our own café, on-site?”   “I like it!” said the CEO. ”Make it happen.”    The project team’s first meeting began like this:

Andrew:  How should we go about this?  Ann:  Well it won’t work unless the coffee’s great. Jeanette:  What would it cost?  What’s our budget?  Bob:  We should get some outside advice. My friend owns a café  . . .  Ann:  It needs to be really up-market or no-one will use it.  Andrew:  OK, let’s keep brainstorming, capture these ideas on a time-line, then see who will action them.  Jeanette:  Are we sure this is a good idea?  Maybe there’s a good reason why some people go down-town. What do the rest of the staff want?  Bob:  That’s not  the issue.  The problem is how to get our own café established. Ann:  But he’s got a point; how do we know staff will use it when it’s set up? Bob:  I suppose we could survey everyone to see what they want from it. Andrew:  OK, let’s put that first on the list.  Who will organise the survey?

I’m making this up, but it fairly represents what I often see in organisations’ everyday problem solving, planning and facilitation.  The following questions about Andrew’s meeting point to some serious flaws in those practices:

• What apparently untested assumptions are made about the nature, extent and relative importance of the problem and its causes; about its connection with the solution; about the planning process; about the problem solving process; about brainstorming;  and about leadership and facilitation of a project team?
• What is the project team’s purpose?  (Ask of your answer to that question, and subsequent answers, “So that what . . ?” )
• What is the purpose of the meeting?
• What appears to be the meeting’s agenda?

Here’s what I’m driving at:  Neither the quality of a plan nor its value is determined by its end result.   If a successful outcome were the main measure of a plan’s effectiveness, then achieving the right results by wrong methods such as coercion, subterfuge, improvisation or muddling (both the latter, in Andrew’s case) would be acceptable and even desirable, no matter what is risked.

However, in very many organisations planning begins with an almost total fixation on end result, especially among people who like to be known for getting things done.  It’s also the place where their problem-solving starts:  rather than accurately define and research the problem, let’s just fix it. Both approaches aim at the right results in the wrong way (often causing havoc).

Combine those two sets of behaviours, add improvisational group facilitation and leadership, and you’ll get the waste of effort likely to result from Andrew’s project team.  Worse, it’s probable that their “solutions” will be stacked on top of earlier “fixes” each of which was meant to fix a previous problem by temporarily masking its causes.

Getting the right outcome from a planning process is important of course, because that’s what planning is for, but it’s important to use the right processes, both to raise the odds of getting the right results and in recognition that our methods themselves affect people and performance.   When a problem is being addressed it’s vital that a methodical not an improvisational approach is used, to make sure we correct what has gone wrong by finding and addressing its real causes.

The measures of a good plan lie in –

• The coherence of the issues, problems and needs it is designed to address
• The clarity of its intentions and underlying assumptions
• The fitness for purpose of means and methods designed to: (i)  Hold its progress efficiently on target;  (ii) Bring out the best in those contributing to its making; (iii) Gather support and commitment for it from those who must implement it; and (iv) Earn the commitment to its outcomes of those who will be affected by them
• The appropriateness and sustainability of its outcomes.

These criteria seem like good sense to me; people usually agree they are “common sense”. But they’re not common workplace practice.   In reality -

Unspoken, unclear and unresolved assumptions create disparate activity and conflict.

Planning is regarded as a matter of sequencing and assigning ownership of a series of actions it is hoped will achieve desired results.

Problems are framed as the absence of solutions, with causes unknown or assumed.  Planning outcomes are therefore ineffective or unsustainable and must be re-worked.

Unclarity about “our current position” makes navigation from “here” to “there” impossible.

The plan charts an unrealistic course from “here” to “there”.

The plan is incompatible with the wider picture within which it must be implemented.

Planning ends too soon; implementation is left to chance, unmonitored.

Implementation begins before planning is completed.

At my website Thriving Workplace, you’ll find discussion papers and practical step-by-step guides designed to help you make good sense common practice – in planning,  problem-solving, facilitation and leadership processes.

Check out this entertaining 7-minute TED talk video of issues to do with problem solving, hidden assumptions, process facilitation skill, collaboration and finding the right plan.  You’ll be surprised by which groups do best!

Black Holes & Medication-Free Dental Surgery

 Are your meetings “. . . black holes sucking vital energy and scarce time out of your day?”

When I want to discover how a client organisation leads and manages its affairs, I arrange to sit-in on one of its meetings.  At any level and in any sector of the organisation they are a microcosm of organisation functioning, prevailing leadership and management practices, and a reliable barometer of effectiveness at developing and conserving human capacity. The degree of wasted human energy that detracts from efficiency and effectiveness in every organisation is nowhere more clearly evident.

Meetings are routinely conducted in ways that leave people feeling confused, patronised, demeaned, manipulated, cheated, frustrated, bored, bullied or resentful.  Sub-surface or hidden agenda effectively sabotage their intentions; distress or discomfort levels are kept high; people’s contributions are blocked - they feel inhibited at best, and often unsafe and under-valued.

People drift in and out [physically and mentally], side conversations distract from the main discussion, discussions drift off track, meetings don’t start or end on time, decisions and next steps are unclear, there’s a mini-meeting happening among a small group of participants with everyone else as spectators, conflicts simmer and occasionally flare up to burn group members, or sessions are a meeting of the bored.  [Jim Clemmer, who is also the author of the remark about black holes]

Following these meetings, residual frustration and resentment spread throughout the organisation like a virus, eroding vast amounts of energy and goodwill. 

Errors begin at the planning stage, and compound.  People behave as though planning for a useful meeting is a matter of simply deciding four matters: the topic, venue, participants and start-time. With this level of under-preparation, many unsafe assumptions are made and vitally important matters are overlooked.

When a meeting (or any other collective venture) begins with a vague plan capable of differing interpretations, whether or not what takes place is relevant, important or right; or whether where, when and how it is approached is appropriate, are matters open to confusion and irresolvable argument. That this is so often the case partly explains why meetings are close to “un-medicated dental surgery” as people’s least-preferred workplace experiences and among organisations’ most inefficient activities.

The foundation of a successful meeting is a methodical plan, directed equally at both task and process.  In practice this is rare.

Planning Successful Meetings is a recent addition to our resources at Thriving Workplace, continuing the progression of our entire range of guidebooks and workbooks to that site, revised and re-written. This discussion paper and guideline (one of six on the subject, with more to follow) details crucial but commonly-overlooked aspects of the meetings process. It’s designed to help you experience better focused, more enjoyable, efficient and productive meetings.

“90% of most executives’ working days are occupied by meetings with at least one other person. Most other managers spend between 35% and 70% of their time at meetings. [. . . Most] are doomed to failure because their purpose has not been accurately identified, the participants aren’t sure where they’re heading, they are not conducted properly, and their results aren’t measured.” [Terry Robins-Jones, University

Click here to check-out Thriving Workplace and complementary articles, or here to access the full range of articles and guidelines with a 6-month or 12 month subscription.

Easier Scheduling of Meetings:

Electronic calendar sharing to schedule meetings with Outlook and similar software programmes works well enough within a single organisation where the software is common to all, but the process can become messy when meeting participants use different calendar systems.  Check out meetingwizard.com, an easy-to-use and free scheduler that can simplify the process. 

You send out a selection of times and dates to anyone with an email address and the programme collates all the responses and finds a commonly convenient time.  It pulls together all the responses in an easy to read grid format. 

Google “online schedulers” to find other programmes.  (Tungle.com for example, has been recommended to us as a comprehensive, high-specs version of the same business tool.)

Subscription Discounts for Groups

We are able to continue substantial introductory savings on Thriving Workplace subscriptions for five or more people from the same organisation. Subscription gives direct access to comprehensive support and development services that inform and guide methodical workplace practices:

RESOURCES FOR THOUGHTFUL LEADERS

STRATEGIES FOR PRAGMATIC MANAGERS

FRAMEWORKS FOR GROUPS & TEAMWORK

GUIDELINES FOR CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIPS

PRACTICES FOR SELF-MANAGEMENT & SELF DEVELOPMENT

REFLECTIONS & DISCUSSION PAPERS FOR THOUGHT-LEADERS.

Reorganising and Squandering

“In a crisis, you have to choose.  Are you going to solve the problem or teach people a lesson?  They’re in direct conflict.”  [Timothy Geithner, US Secretary of Treasury.]

Here in New Zealand as elsewhere, the economic downturn is driving a mission to downsize state and local government agencies by reorganising or merging them. The push is to “ . . . reprioritise activities and drop lower-priority ones, find efficiencies . . , pool resources . . . and contract out.”  The belief is that reorganisation will “cut costs and improve management.”  [Quotations:   Colin James.]

Well, dream on. Efficiencies and improved management are the least likely outcomes. Most of the targeted agencies have been through this before and have eventually washed up at the same place, in need (someone keeps deciding) of further reorganising.  Doing repeatedly what has been done many times before and expecting different results is futile.

When the problem is clutter in your garden shed or workshop, a periodic reorganisation just might ease it. But if you don’t re-focus your intention for the facility, clarify the obstacles to achieving it and what causes them, and refine users’ behaviours to match the intended purpose, the change won’t address the problem, it avoids it.  You’ll soon be tripping over equipment again, rusting good tools, doubling-up on purchases because you can’t find what you need when you need it or forgot you already had one, and arguing with other users – probably about the need for a further reorganisation.

Restructuring initiatives as conventionally practised (as will certainly be the case here), involve  trying to do the wrong thing (that is, business as usual without regard to the causes of systemic problems), better (that is, with reduced resources and fewer people).  Although in some instances the agenda is to subvert democracy or to punish people, the thrust is usually economic and fails to respond to the constituents’ human needs, thereby punishing them anyway.

The phenomenon is an outstanding example of implementing a “solution” that has little or no bearing on what causes most of the problem, only to create further problems.  What really should be addressed but won’t be, are drivers of systemic organisational dysfunctionality such as these:

• A desire on the part of those who have or take control, to create efficiency and tidiness based largely on economic-centredness rather than functionality and effectiveness based on person-centredness.
• A tendency for organisations to overly focus on achieving business purpose to the detriment of developing their constituents’ capacity for it.
• Imposition of the conventional top-down command and control dynamic (however “flat” it is made to appear) with its inbuilt self-defeating tendencies.
• Confusion about the difference between strategy and tactics.
• Overlaps and hazy boundaries between governance and operations.
• Improvisational or misdirected planning, leadership, management, and cohesion-building practices.
• Interpersonal behaviours, problem-solving and conflict resolution processes which create and exacerbate problems.

It’s  easy to show that placed in the same system after a reorganisation, people recreate earlier performance, even with different roles and new responsibilities. Without a system change, performance defaults to previous patterns even if the original people are replaced.

People usually get on board with and support changes to the degree that they are involved in the reasons for and the process of change:  “Any complex task is best approached by flattening hierarchies,” [General Stanley McChrystal].

But when reorganisations are considered, planned and executed the very opposite occurs; an elite group concentrates power to control the process in secrecy and make unilateral decisions affecting everyone else.  The human stress, fear, cynicism and other human damage this produces is enormous and yet, at the end of it, the control group expects everyone’s full support and cooperation.

A safer prediction of outcomes from the current round of reorganisations is that they will include heavy costs, as Colin James* observes:  “[Reorganising] . . . puts jobs at risk, damages morale, temporarily reduces productivity, sometimes compromises operational capacity and loses institutional knowledge, forcing the costly reinvention of many wheels.”  [* “What is ‘normal’ now?”, The Press, Christchurch, March 13, 2010.]

James describes these as “a downside” of reorganisation. To me they are counter-productive at best, and likely to be tragic.  Constituents of these organisations who lack the ability to resist or influence the process will live through slow motion catastrophes.

I’ve seen from close quarters many restructuring efforts in the name of efficiency: those of state and local government agencies, research and science organisations, heavy industry and electronics companies, public health providers, and the local offices of multi-national corporations. I’ve witnessed some organisations’ fourth or fifth reorganisation within 12 years.  All have involved a squandering of goodwill, human energy and potential.  Most have involved a continuation of the squandering that led to the call for reorganisation in the first place!

Those who know my work will understand that I intend these observations not as a verdict but as a diagnosis subject to treatment. My efforts to address issues of this kind through EncourageMentors and Thriving Workplace may not revolutionise organisation life but they are radical in the sense that they go to the roots of some damaging problems and offer support for an evolutionary start on resolving them – if we decide to run our organisations as though people and organisational thriving matter. The important thing is to make a start, even though our efforts may show few definitive or immediate improvements.

Watch this wonderful three-minute movie on how to start a movement.

“Although attempts to improve social and economic conditions usually proceed incrementally, it is impossible to foretell precisely when any of our endeavors will reach critical mass, and bear unexpected fruits . . .  {W]e need to draw enough strength from our initial steps to help us persevere . . .  ‘Before water turns to ice,’ writes psychologist Joanna Macy, ‘it looks just the same as before. Then a few crystals form, and suddenly the whole system undergoes cataclysmic change.’”  [From Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in Challenging Times by Paul Rogat Loeb, St Martin’s Press, 2010. See www.paulloeb.org.]

Corporosclerosis

Previously, I discussed the workplace Thriving-Surviving Gap.  Here I describe other aspects of the idea.  First, a recap:

Within every group of people there is a considerable reservoir of goodwill, knowledge, wisdom and talent. The duty of workplace (and community group) leaders and managers is – and the collective commitment should be – to tap this energy and direct the flow in ways that bring out the best and best-directed efforts in everyone.

Unfortunately, conventional efforts often impede the flow or reduce it to a thin trickle. Groups end up struggling to survive, when they could be thriving. We do better to understand the problem and apply different approaches that address its causes.

The problem is made worse by organisations’ tendency to become inflexible over time.  As this happens, their attention, resources and best efforts divert from the really important challenges and opportunities, to little more than immediate threats and crises.  The norm for determining priorities becomes How urgent is this? and not How important is this?  Gung-ho newbies, creative thinkers and natural innovators quickly understand that the culture intends to perpetuate, not develop itself, so give up on addressing obvious problems and making pre-emptive improvements.  

 “Every system strives towards durability, but as with human aging, longevity has a cost,” (James Fallows).  Organisations experience a “progressive loss of the ability to adapt, [a process] . . . like hardening of the arteries, which builds up stealthily over many years,” (Jonathan Rauch). 

As with progressive artery-clogging, it can take a whack on the side of the head in the form of a crisis to provoke interest in change.  Sometimes it’s too late; the whack on the head is the floor coming up to meet us.  Some recent examples I’m aware of:

• A poorly organised community choir constantly struggles with a frustratingly high membership turnover which reduces its repertoire and weakens performances
• A regional authority becomes so distanced from its customers that federal government moves to disestablish it
• A district school loses a quarter of its key staff within two months
• A multi-national focused on business-as-usual fails to detect internal illegalities which bring it almost to its knees.

Organisations either spend little (time, energy or money) on repairing what really needs fixing or spend a great deal on trying to bury problems by throwing inappropriate solutions at them and on doing the wrong things better (a triumph of tactics over strategy). Wastage compounds. 

They eventually become old, broken and dysfunctional and possibly beyond repair, as we do.  People decide that the only sane choice is to keep muddling through. Enthusiasm and energy plummet.

I estimate 40-60% of the energy represented by people in organisations is routinely wasted while the balance is released principally because people decide to give their best despite the systems.  How do you rate it?  (See the poll, below.)

Although it’s difficult to fix an aeroplane already in flight, the consequences of ignoring problems can be, well, terminal. Rather than business-as-usual until we succumb to the organisational equivalent of arteriosclerosis (corporosclerosis?) we should constantly strive for a better path through our times by reducing the Thriving-Surviving Gap;  that’s what makes the difference that matters, even if we don’t perfectly resolve every challenge.  

This requires courage on the part of the 10% of the people willing to be unreasonable; those optimistic idealists who believe good sense can prevail despite the odds. They must name and persist with matters normally avoided because they provoke discomfort. Counter-pressure from the other 90% can be powerful, especially when it includes those who hold organisational authority.  

My approach to these challenges is to support methodical approaches to quantifying them and to implementing what people call common sense, though what they really mean is uncommon good sense. I help them define or remember what good sense looks like and learn simple concepts which support it.  I offer resources, strategy and encouragement to make it everyday practice.   

Is it worth your making the effort? Well, if common practice in your workplace involves frequent muddling through and dysfunctionality, if people must often struggle to work around the system rather than within it to do anything useful, if capacity for purpose is consistently under par, it’s worth considering how much potential might be released productively if these matters were addressed.  

Small incremental changes can make a great difference.  (It’s not enough, of course;  the basic structure of our organisations must change, but that’s a topic for future blogs.)  The greatest benefit comes from people’s understanding that at last, the elephants in the room are on the agenda. This reduces negativity and scepticism and eventually, cynicism.  A surge of raised spirits and goodwill is released.       

Goodwill and raised spirits have real power.  

 

Notes: 

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic.  Jonathan Rauch is the author of Demosclerosis, a book about “governments’  progressive loss of the ability to act”.

Thriving or surviving?

This is my first post, so by way of introduction I’ll put the case for my blog title.

I’m going to write about matters to do with the extent to which workplaces and the people within them thrive, because I believe this matters very much;  we spend a lot of our lives in workplaces.   In most of them, there’s a significant difference between the everyday conditions people experience and the conditions they need to thrive and do their best.  It’s a gap into which unrealised potential routinely and unnecessarily drains away. 

Evidence is found in organisations’ unresolved and recurring problems, inertia, indecision, confusion, misdirected efforts, mistrust, hostility, cynicism, low morale, disengagement, factionalism, inflexibility, passive or active resistance, and messy staff exits. This wastage offends and appals me. 

The kind of development necessary to address and limit it is often misunderstood, given token effort or overlooked entirely.  It’s not very sexy and lacks career appeal. Most of the time it interests only a few stakeholders:  the so-called 10% on whom all progress depends.  They’re prepared to be unreasonably non-accepting of things as they are while others  shrug their shoulders and say, Well, what can you do . . ? 

Here’s my central point: While every group of people represents a considerable reservoir of goodwill, knowledge, experience, wisdom and talent, typically, too little of it is released. The duty of leaders and managers is, and the collective commitment should be, to tap this energy and direct the flow in ways that bring out the best and best-directed efforts in everyone. Unfortunately, conventional efforts impede the flow or reduce it to a thin trickle. Potential for effectiveness is lost. Groups end up struggling to survive, when they could be thriving. 

This gap is tolerated far more than it should be - within groups ranging from the local food-bank, community choir or district school, to service groups, government bodies and multi-national corporations - because people lack the support, the will or courage necessary for change, or insight into its causes.  Often, it’s because they prefer not to rock the boat.  

“Most people don’t want to change and most of those who say that they do, don’t want to really.  They just want help to be happier about staying exactly as they are  . . . “.  (Sheldon Kopp)

There are two basic reasons for this gap:

• The prevalence of inappropriate, inconsistent or improvisational processes for managing Primary Task (the organisation’s fundamental purpose, what it must do to survive in business) and for managing the development of capacity for Primary Task (what it must do in order to constantly thrive in pursuit of that purpose).
•  Over-attention to the organisation’s Primary Task at the expense of developing (a) individuals’ capacity  for the Primary Task; and (b) the development of collective capacity for the Primary Task – people’s ability to work together usefully and congenially.

I’m not entirely a dreamer.  I know that perfect functioning, complete efficiency and effectiveness would require intercession, from whoever is the patron saint of the workplace,  for a major modern-day miracle. Our organisations and workplace behaviours are as they are because of structural and systemic imperfections designed into them and perpetuated by our social history over hundreds of years, and because of the habituated perceptions, behaviours and expectations of each participant.  Changing all of those interlocking pieces of the puzzle would need a combination of commitment, flair, creativity and powerful magic not yet invented or, if already in existence, not widely known.

However, many people have studied these matters and helped organisations harvest the rewards of useful changes. They have produced most progress when well-planned, managed, monitored, and inspired by far-sighted leadership with bold aspirations. Very often they involve implementing very obvious, very simple, small-step improvements.

My own research on-the-job in workplaces over 30 years has led me to believe that much of what’s needed to transform workplaces into thriving workplaces is not found in MBA studies or the latest “best practices” book by a CEO or academic, but encouragement to make what is simple good sense, common sense and common practice.   

It surprises me how rare that is. What most surprises my clients is how much commitment and effort it takes to make good sense everyday practice, and how significant are the improvements that result from even its slightest application.

In upcoming posts I’ll introduce specific ideas about some of the challenges I see in the workplace in the course of my work.  I’ll suggest new ways of examining those challenges and offer strategies in support of workplace thriving .  

I hope you’ll enjoy and benefit from taking an interest.  I look forward to your discussion and comments.