Is it true or just another fad?

"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favour" says Robert Frost, poet speaking through his poem, "The Black Cottage". This poet was fascinated by the meaning of truth and decisions. He has produced many quotes which follow a similar train of thought. In this sense, he was ahead of his time. Only now, with a social constructionist theory of knowledge being considered (that there are many versions of knowledge and truths - depending upon one's values, culture, experiences, religion, and so on); overtaking the previous view of knowledge which was that theories were facts for a period of time - or at least until a new theory came along and knocked it off its perch! At one time the earth was considered flat, now it is round; we used to believe that doctors were witches, now they are life-savers; women have been considered equal to gods in some cultures and to devils in others; the same goes for cats; Hawking's Theory M topples Einstein's E=MC2 which in turn toppled Newton's Laws; etc. etc.

Only now are we accepting that our knowledge is constructed in time, space, situation and environment. Or, as per the opinions of Robert Frost, true knowledge is highly questionable. As he said later in life, "a jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer!"

It is this doubt in traditional organisational decision-making and thinking that now preoccupies organisational developmental psychologists, anthropologists, knowledge management specialists, management thinkers and social scientists. What methods do we really have at our disposal, in order to effectively handle such grey areas as "Truths"? Does someone have a bad attitude, as I have heard said about the naysayers to a change initiative, or are they making a valid point with genuine concern for the organisation? Many change initiatives fail in the earliest phases (studies show that around 50% do not get off the starting blocks; with the other 50% performing moderately to poorly against expectations).

Curiously, the methods for challenging truths are the ones we have become most preoccupied with lately. The most useful methods (IMHO) being developed have been the skills in facilitating groups to widen perspectives, altering their individual models of learning, and so altering long-held "truths". Done well, this allows more imaginative and better solutions to be found. Do it poorly however and groups will polarise further, clam up and even disband (often in a pretty visceral and unpleasant way).

Some real "hot spots" include attempts at altering power distribution and status (one of the many reasons why change initiatives are so fraught with conflict); religious beliefs; traditions; theoretical "certainties"; and crossing boundaries (boundaries are usually personal and highly subjective). It takes a very skilled facilitator to take all these into account. Placing a hand on the shoulder of another for instance, can represent very different things, with the potential for crossing a personal or cultural boundary of acceptable personal space. When Tony Blair, the UK's PM at that time, sat beside Libya's Colonel Gadaffi, Arab nations around the world recoiled at the insult of Gadaffi showing the sole of his shoe to Blair. To most Westerners however, this act went completely unnoticed. 

Another factor to consider is where a power imbalance is too great. Challenge, even though constructive, tends not to work particularly well here so firstly always try to level the playing field as much as possible (or get an impartial mediator to facilitate).

Where religions differences are at the root of the problem, enhanced discovery through education and exposure to other beliefs can be a better means of improvement, moreso than simply discussion forums or focus groups, as in the case of Northern Ireland's troubles where childrens' schooling ceased to be segregated. In doing so there became an improved chance to expose catholics to protestants and vice versa, at an earlier age, with a mutual goal of learning as well as reducing the dehumanisation that segregation had encouraged.

Broadening one's own experiences is often the most effective way of being able to see things from another perspective. As the old proverb says, "do not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes". In other words, if you're the boss, don't think that you can open up the group to challenge through using your position in the hierarchy - good bosses know that they tread a thin line here.

Equally, if you disagree with someone's religion, let it alone. We mightn't like the actions of those defined by a particular belief system but if it can be addressed at all, this can only be done in terms of specific interactions, treated very separately from the religious or spiritual beliefs (not easy to do at all). In the words of original System Thinker, Russ Ackoff, our leaders' jobs are now "to manage .. interactions, not actions, and the interactions of the unit managed with other internal and external organizations. This can only be done with a social systemic model in mind." (On The Mismatch Between Systems And Their Models, Russell L. Ackoff and Jamshid Gharajedaghi).

These skills are not so much about knowing that we must challenge our long-held beliefs or truisms, but rather it is how these long-held beliefs can be changed, and whether we should try (include here how to anticipate limits). Creative methods in the fields of knowledge management, conflict resolution, psychology and learning are constantly being adapted, tested and challenged. Frequently I hear people say "if we do that then ...". "If .. then .. " statements are laden with assumptions (and faulty conclusions). When we hear them we need to ask questions such as "is this completely true?"; "when might that not be the case?"; "would anyone disagree with that assumption (and why)?". Of course, be aware that simply by asking these questions in an environment insufficiently primed for them, you could be lighting touch-paper!

I will be taking some time out from writing this blog in order to work on a Handbook for Organisational Learning. Please contact me if you would like more information on the methods for encouraging learning and better relationships in organisations.

Fertile Learning Environments

So, in fulfilling the promise I made in my last blog, here are a few observations gathered from the experts highlighting the key conditions most needed for the more adaptable and ultimately healthier learning organisation to flourish:

1. Improve harmony through allowing freedom to adapt . As I said in my previous blog, if change is a top-down "sheep-dipping" exercise of pushing everyone through, then it will most likely fail. The impact is bigger when we think smaller and this is where equilibrium can more readily be established. Jack Welsch, ex-CEO of General Electric, moved from a top-down vision (that GE had to be no. 1 or no.2 in their markets) to a more learning organisation, his "Work-Out" concept. In societal terms, local communities understand peoples needs better than national governments can.

2. Develop trust. Sometimes a leader will say, "Oh we already do a lot of that. We hold monthly team-building sessions, etc." However, consider something more along the lines of getting beneath the "masks" that we wear. Many people have a different persona at work to home for example, and it can be risky to drop them (I do not mean crossing important personal boundaries, such as invading peoples' privacy however). Rather it involves understanding true opinions about ideas, uncertainties, fears and failures without judgement or blame. I remember one occasion where I observed a team all dutifully agreeing with the boss during their management meeting, except one, who was pulled up for opposing the others before then obediently falling into line. After the meeting however, several pulled me over privately to have a conversation much more meaningful than the one I had observed during the meeting. Which information is more valuable in this instance - that shared during the meeting or that outside it? So how as Team Leader or Department Head can you begin to develop more trust? Try exploring opinions and assumptions with attention given to underlying interests and fears; and ensure any "sacred cows" or "elephants sitting in the corner of the room" are broached. Where information is shared there is more transparency and so trust. As Sun T'zu wrote in "The Art of War", to defeat one's enemy one must first understand him. The enemy in this instance is the risk of misunderstandings and opportunities lost that lack of trust brings.

Teams exhibiting poor trust try to avoid failure through working longer hours, experience less job satisfaction, take less pride in their work, and more readily blame others for their shortcomings (Dee, 1995a).

3. Distribute authority.Team leaders who are able to "suspend the hierarchy" and serve as equal team members are most successful (DuBrin, 1995). This entails allowing the right people to make important decisions at the time they are needed, rather than deferring to a higher authority. From fairly inocuous examples of a waiter offering a compensatory drink or aperitif where the meal is taking too long to arrive, to a member of the military's rank and file nominating a peer for immediate stress leave or counselling and being taken seriously, both demonstrate how sharing authority can have an immediate and positive impact. Effective teamwork requires that team members feel free to contribute freely, despite formal hierarchies. This type of freedom is characteristic of high performing teams (McIntyre and Salas, 1995). One basic concept asserted by the leading thinkers in this area (Senge, Ross, Smith, Roberts, & Kleiner) is that teams have "common territories." The implication of "common territories" is that individual team members need one another to take action (Senge et al., 1994) and so achieving objectives is more important than formalised hierarchies.

4. Share the credit. Collaboration won't work where any one person hogs the limelight at the expense of the others. Make sure that any "wall-flowers" are drawn out and consulted and that prolific talkers are managed. Early indicators of collaboration and rewarding the collective as opposed to the individual is the use of language - "we", "us" and "ours" versus "I", "my", "you" and "yours". Individuals who work much harder at retaining their individuality, status or reward than on team goals will hamper adaptability and learning.

5. Respect conflict. High levels of creativity and initiative in team processes sometimes require conflict and many different perspectives. The mindset needs to be "resolving conflict" by working through it rather than avoiding it. Consider how your team's capability at striving for balance between conformity towards group goals and yet retaining uniqueness of thought and actions can be improved.

6. Leaders as coaches. Leaders who make effective coaches resist using management techniques that emphasize giving orders, making threats, setting deadlines, requiring quotas, and handing out reprimands. Flexibility, learning and adaptation will not occur in an intimidating environment.

7. Raise consciousness through dialogue. Dialogue should be considered a "core team competency" because of its impact on team effectiveness and team learning. Dialogue helps to bring faulty assumptions (mental models) to the surface so that they can be challenged. Dialogue requires four processes for success: 1. Invitation; 2. Generative Listening; 3. Observing the Observer; and 4. Suspending Assumptions (Senge 1994). This cannot happen where there is a climate of fear of disapproval, penalty or judgement.

8. Tap into social networks, virtual and real, for more rapid innovation. Technology has caused society to more rapidly change and as social networks are more easily formed the old hierarchical structures of organisations have been made obsolete. A good example might be to consider how traditional government and policy-making is being influenced more and more by a groundswell of a more connected and more informed public. As described by Charles Handy (1996), organisations have become more like "networks," and in order to function, "networks" must have connectivity. Social networks derive energy from feeling good through the act of participation, with contribution voluntary.

I must admit, I struggled to write this list. Each point above sounds like a simple statement of "how to" whereas in reality their execution would be far more complex and open to interpretation. Equally, not all points above hold equal weight. If we bake a loaf of bread for instance, the temperature can afford to be too high and we will still achieve something pretty close. If we forget to add yeast however, we will never get an edible loaf. If I were asked to define the most important thing needed for creating a learning organisation, my thoughts go to control and certainty (the yeast?). At the most fundamental level, how much does the organisation value control and how much does it need certainty? For a more adaptable organisation to exist, as with society, control must be relinquished and certainty sacrificed.

Do We Work Better for Causes or People?

Positive psychology (psychologists studying the psychology of success) has become very interested in organisational capacity to tap into what they often refer to as the "added discretionary effort" of the people. Is it the the cause or company that is the driving force, or is it the relationships and the connections, that make an organisation truly successful?

One position is that people join good companies (or causes) but often leave because of poor management or decision-making. All the money, time and effort spent recruiting and training an employee, as well as their unique knowledge, can easily be lost. Another position is that good managers are worth their weight in gold, particularly where the organisation itself is weak on either process or people-management. In the war film, "Black Hawk Down", director Ridley Scott offers his view through the words of lead US marine, Hoot:

"When I go home people'll ask me, "Hey Hoot, why do you do it man? What, you some kinda war junkie?" You know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is."

Rather cliched some might say, but also a true reflection of what keeps people pulling together. On the downside, even where it is a dubious or lost cause, as history has witnessed many times, people can continue to pull together.

The organisation having the ability to intervene where there is blind loyalty, to encourage intelligent critique, innovation or better practice, as much as the capacity to create cohesive team spirit, requires certain learning processes as well as accompanying "soft" skills. Unsurprisingly, many of these processes were developed for the military, through activities such as "Wash-Ups" between task forces following certain operations, in order to identify what went well and what could be learned from. These, along with many others are now utilised to leverage not only continued loyalty, or added discretionary effort even, but importantly improved practice and innovation. Whether it's the people or the cause that is more influential is still very much open for debate and so I'll leave it up to you the reader to decide which matters most to you. Ultimately, they both count in encouraging added discretionary effort.