The director of the conference I attended in France made a short presentation at the last session in which he encapsulated what he and the management had been doing for the 8 days of our experience.
“We have been managing boundaries, not policing rules”
That’s the most concise description of management and leadership I have ever come across. If we’re managing boundaries then we are on the edge of difference. If we’re policing rules then we are imposing conformity. All problems in systems are caused by an attempt to control someone else’s actions and behaviours. Attempting to police those situations more often than not results in the suppression of difference and generates the fantasy of collaboration. If we’re brave enough to accept that difference exists and is enriching and is part and parcel of all systems, then the task becomes one of managing and engaging with that difference. If there is room for difference then there can be a realistic and authentic agreement to move forward from that perspective. That, to me, sounds like a more authentic form of consensus than an imposed “rule” that we all have to be the same.
As I mentioned in the previous post, I use a process called Dynamic Participation as a methodology for consulting and facilitating. Increasingly we live in an age where "participation" is thrown around like snuff at a wake - what exactly does it mean? and more to the point, what does it look like? Here are some of the principles that I work by:
Always work in the “here and now”. Who said what to whom a week ago; a month ago or a year ago is rarely useful in terms of moving a situation forward. Working with what is going on in the room right now is.
Always work on a live issue. Role plays and case studies can be really interesting ways of getting a group to work on a task, but they rarely result in that group applying the learning in their work environment after the workshop/session has finished. Working on something that is a live issue for everyone in the room is one sure fired way to ensuring that learning sticks.
Context is as important as content. How someone decides to "put something into the room" is always as important as what they say and is a huge source of information about how this group works together in helpful and unhelpful ways.
Making a difference starts with being in the room. If people can’t understand why you have invited them together then the process is pointless. If however, you can show people by the way in which you interact with them that their presence and view is essential then you create immediate buy in.
Keep the process public. Have the conversations about why you are there, what is expected and hoped for, boundaries around time etc out loud and with those you invite into your process. Take a risk and produce notes of the meeting that summarise what has been discussed and distribute these openly to all who attend.
Dialogue, not monologue. Are you sure you are consulting/facilitating? And not disseminating? A real dialogue involves myriad views…are you open to changing yours on the basis of what you hear? If so, then a real and genuine dialogue can yield exciting results. If not, then you are engaged in a monologue and people will rarely come back for a second lecture.
Roles come with responsibilities and that goes for everyone in the conversation. Dynamic Participation offers a space to ask each participant – what is my role? And what is my responsibility? Taking the blame culture out of organisational life can only be done if both of these questions are asked and answered by everyone in the room (including the consultant).
Attend to boundaries, not rules. By attending to the boundaries of the process you leave room for difference. By attending to rules you impose conformity.
Ask those who present with negative statements to offer positive alternatives, thereby focussing on what is possible as distinct from what is not.
Defensive people are usually trying to protect something important. Instead of getting frustrated with the defence try asking “what is so important here that it needs this kind of protection?”
I contributed to a comment stream over at Creating Passionate Users recently and meant to come back to it to post something here in response.
Kathy posted a really interesting article on criticism. She says
The tricky part is that the criticisms aren't always wrong. It really might be all hype. It might be BS. It might be just a fad, or the same s*** with a new name. But things are rarely that black and white. Where there is passion (not just fad or fashion), there is something real there. Something that some people see and feel. But the key point to keep in mind--and the one that offers a simple solution--is this:
People will sometimes diss things they know very little about
In my response to a really great article about the value of passion (in all its forms) I said:
Sometimes the uninformed criticism is a reaction to being patronised and I think advocates and evangelists for various products/services need to be careful that they don’t cross the boundary between enthusiasm/passion and being patronising. Ultimately, we have to make it possible for people to say “I don’t like that” or “I don’t know” without imposing a value judgement. I’ll never get golf…I don’t think my life is in any way diminished as a result…the more I can admit that then the less I am likely to take a cudgel and bludgeon golf lovers to metaphorical death!
I sometimes come across this situation with client organisations which are so enthusiastic to promote the value of what they do that they sometimes forget that not everyone sees it the same way. Take golf for example (and I apologise in advance to any golf playing readers). I don’t play it, I probably never will and I remember feeling distinctly patronised by a friend on one occasion who suggested that I was missing something by not trying it out. I didn’t feel like I was missing anything and felt then that I’d never walk onto a golf course because it would be proving him right, me wrong and as a result I haven’t entertained the notion since. He made it difficult for me to see the value of it by assuming a high moral ground about the value and I made it impossible for myself to see the invitation by reacting to it.
I agree with Kathy that passion comes in all shapes and sizes and needs to be attended to. I also believe that creators, consultants or whomever need to moderate our enthusiasm so that it comes across as an invitation and not the potential sound of a door slamming.
In fiction, the most powerful weapon the writer has is suggestion. I think that nearly all good writing is suggestion, and all bad writing is statement. Statement kills off the reader’s imagination. With suggestion, the reader takes up from where the writer leaves off (John McGahern 1934 - 2006)
I’m reading Saturday by Ian McEwan at the moment. Shamefully I have to admit that I only “discovered” McEwan seriously over Christmas…prior to that I was buried in non-fiction, Jane Austen and John McGahern (my two favourite writers) and even now, when I should be reading organisational theory I steal away for an hour or so to spend it with Ian...and I’m rationing our time together. The words are so eloquently and densely packed that I relish the engagement so I can read and re-read his intention, extracting from it myriad meanings depending on my mood. I don’t want our time together to end too soon.
What I love about his writing is the word-smithing. The prose is extended poetry where each word counts. His attention to the detail of each syllable, how it works with the one next door and how they add up to paint a picture of what i is precisely he wants to convey. He doesn’t accommodate; he doesn’t talk down; he doesn’t make it easy. He just “is” – comfortable with his choice of words; extending an invitation to participate (or not); confident in his own space and the consummate story teller. It’s compelling stuff.
The man has authority, it’s heady, and it is a privilege to share the space with him…and I wonder sometimes if in our haste to be all things to all people – be that “on call” 24/7 or trying to word-smith the web blurb or compose proposals do we lose the essence of who we really are? I struggle sometimes with entering into the grammar of prospective clients wondering if they will have any real idea of what it would be like to work with me. And then I take a risk and say it as it is and hope that it might fall on the right ears. Perhaps it will, perhaps it won’t – but taking my own authority is something that I make a decision about. Authority is sometimes awarded and sometimes taken. The delicate dance between when and how is the complex one that only experience informs. In McEwan’s case, he’s a master and he knows it – so do I and I’m happy to follow. Time now, for another chapter.
I’ve been invited to facilitate a short session as part of the final day of the Matrix programme at Common Purpose here in Dublin. I am a past graduate (2003/2004) of the programme which seeks to bring leaders from all sectors together over the course of a year to explore their sectors, and to also explore how they can lead outside of their “authority” or organisations.
The session I am going to facilitate is called “Creative leadership” and part of the task is to invite the participants to reflect on their experience over the past twelve months. I’m playing with a way of working that might invite them to consider three things: How they have taken on their leadership; How they have awarded leadership and how they have followed….We’ve only a short amount of time (an hour and a half) and I’d love to get some input from readers as to how we could use the time creatively … I’m open to throwing my lens out the window – any takers? I will of course come back and let you know what happens…
In Manfred Kets de Vries' presentation at the recent ISPSO conference he highlighted the key concerns of top executives. I captured 9 of them and there may have been more – but here you go:
1 Interpersonal conflict
2 Management of disappointment
3 Nobel Prize complex – can I be number 1?
4 Feeling like an imposter/fake
5 Faust syndrome (boredom)
6 Life balance
7 Fuck you money – how much money is enough?
8 Relationships with others
9 Body stress
I found this list fascinating – because all of these issues are “personal” and “inter-personal” – I don’t see much here in the way of organisational or business angst – even the issue of “fuck you money” is one of value and how we know what we are worth. It appears that there comes a time when existential issues take over. There’s much to think about that relates to every level of organisational functioning in here – leadership, power, politics, management etc etc… I’m sure this list could be extended by miles. I also suspect this list could be re-drawn for different stages of career development (mmm I might think about that a bit more).
On a side issue, number 2 is the precise topic I’m researching for my PhD and to be honest, there is not much in the way of management literature about this subject (which presents a great challenge and opportunity for me naturally!).
Why is religious language so common in the world of business? I see people who are "Evangelists" for products and services; Boards go on "retreats"; I've heard of "breaking bread" and "communion" with clients and fellow workers; poor customer service operatives "confess" to their "sins"...Is it because I'm from a (predominantly) Catholic culture that this seems at little odd to me?
I've never met an Irish Evangelist (in a business sense anyway!), and the only retreats I can think of were those we went on at school in the hormonally charged years - much fuel for confession was generated! But what is going on here? Are we asking people to have "blind faith" in products and services? Are we suggesting that a charasmatic leader with an on target message will generate the right business environment for success? Help me out here!
3. Success Built To Last by Porras, Emery and Thompson
4. The Starfish and The Spider by Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom
5. Knowledge and The Wealth of Nations by David Warsh
6. Origin of Wealth by Eric Beinhocker
7. Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert
8. Mavericks at Work by Bill Taylor and Polly LaBarre
9. Changing Minds by Howard Gardner
10. Setting The Table by Danny Meyer
If I'm not mistaken there isn't a single female author in the lot (ok one is jointly authored by a woman but you know what I mean)...What on earth is this saying about the state of business, authorship, publishing, online buying, Amazon's book pickers, customers, management etc in the 21st century?
Managing the relationship between a board of directors and CEO of a charitable organisation can be challenging at the best of times. In my experience difficulties arise when both parties are clear about their individual roles are but are unclear about the overlap and relationship between their role and that of the other. Common questions I hear are:
How does an agenda get constructed for a board meeting? and who has responsibility for this?
Who is responsible for making sure that the relevant compliance material is lodged with the authorities?
How much say does the board have in the day to day work of the organisation?
I generally try to work with CEOs and board members separately and then together to firstly clarify their role and secondly draw out their understandings and expectations of the other's. Taking real life examples of dilemmas and challenges is a great way of testing the theory in advance of having to manage a crisis when there's little time for thinking.
Here's a brief outline of the primary roles and responsibilities of the Board and CEO which can be used to start those conversations about role, responsibilities and the relationship between.
Hat tip to Johnnie for finding the following in Phil Dourado’s free book chapter for February:
Tim Collins, a career soldier, rose to prominence when an impromptu speech he gave to the Irish regiment he commanded in Iraq ended up in newspapers all over the world. Collins says…that “to lead effectively, you have to love people”. Collins goes on to explain ‘love’ as knowing and caring about what motivates people and what is important to them, and helping them fulfil those aspirations at work. This, he says, is a foundation of leadership.
Sharing knowledge, looking after employees’ wellbeing, giving people your time and attention, respecting and acknowledging the contribution of others, all are incontrovertible aspects of good leadership. It only becomes controversial when the ‘L’ word is applied.
"Leadership is emotional. Leadership deals with feelings. Leadership is made up of dreams, inspiration, excitement, desire, pride, care, passion, and love. The areas of our lives where we show the strongest leadership – including our communities, families, organizations, products, services, hobbies, and customers - are where we're most in love." (Jim Clemmer)
Ever wondered why hiring the wrong consultant is very often the right decision for organisations? There may come a point when you know that the task you’ve been hired to do or facilitate simply isn’t the task that needs to be done – what on earth are you going to do? How are you going to manage the mounting pressure to deliver when all around you the signs are telling you that failure is on the horizon?
Change processes evoke anxiety – whether it’s at a personal or professional level – that’s one reason why the change industry is outsourced to consultants. Anxiety is difficult to talk about or deal with at a conscious level but its presence is felt everywhere in what may look like irrational behaviour and illogical decision making.
You’d imagine that choosing a consultant to manage the change process and deliver on the strategic goals would be important? After all, this is an important stage in the organisation’s development isn’t it? All well and good with our rational hats on. Unconsciously it may be more important to choose a consultant who can’t deliver, thereby protecting ourselves from the anxiety of change by blaming the consultant for not being good enough.
Consultants can be “not good enough” in various ways. They may not have the right people skills to work with the emotional issues that change presents. The IT system will be up and running in no time but people won’t have a clue what’s happening and where they may end up next week. A consultant may simply not have the professional experience to engage with the task at a strategic enough level. The project will be micro managed, take enormous amounts of time and may be discontinued due to excessive costs. The consultant may not have the authority in the system to roll out the changes that have been agreed – s/he may be de-authorised by the board from actually delivering on the task.
In all of these scenarios the consultant will absorb the organisation’s anxiety by feeling unwelcome, not good enough, set up to fail, disappointed, confused and angry etc. Very often, the consultant will be scapegoated for failing to deliver while not knowing that they were hand picked to fail.
When the wrong consultant is picked it may be the right decision for an organisation not ready to deal with change. A ritual sacrifice is often required and on many occasions the consultant is that offering. In this instance failure isn’t failure it’s a strong signal that there is other work to be accomplished before change is actioned. Very often that other work is finding a safe way to address the underlying anxiety that all change evokes. If a company is brave enough it may look to its “failures” as rich learning about the need to connect with the very real and very human fear of change.
In another of the superb TED podcastsKen Robinson gives a riveting (and very witty) presentation on the value of creativity and how our western education system is teaching us how to use our bodies as glorified transportation systems for our heads. He advocates a shift in the education system that values creativity for its own sake and for its impact on innovation. A timely reminder perhaps of a general election looming in about a week or so? I would be very interested to hear what our public representatives would make of Robinson's thoughts..
I eventually got around to reading the Art of Possibility on my recent trip to the US. Here's an extract from the Amazon blurb.
Ben Zander, conductor for the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra, and professor at the New England Conservatory of Music, was faced with the same problem every year for 25 years: Teaching students who were in such a chronic state of anxiety over the measurement of their performance, they were reluctant to take creative risks. One night, he sat down with his partner Roz Stone Zander, a therapist, to try to find a solution. They decided the best approach would be to give everyone an A, at the beginning of the course. The A was not intended as a way to measure someone's performance against standards, but as an instrument to open them up to new possibilities.
This didn’t mean students could slack off for the rest of the semester. Students were required to write a letter that began with “Dear Mr. Zander, I got my A because…” and they had to describe in as much detail as possible, how they came to achieve this “extraordinary grade.”
In writing their letters, Zander said students must “place themselves in the future, looking back, and report on all the insights they acquired and the milestones they attained during the year, as if those accomplishments were already in the past. Everything must be written in the past tense. Phrases such as ‘I hope,’ ‘I intend,’ or ‘I will’ must not appear.”
Zander asserts “the A is an invention that creates possibilities for both mentor and student, manager and employee, or for any human interaction.” The A allows teams to accomplish what is possible, and reduces “the disparity in power between them can become a distraction and an inhibitor, drawing energy away from productivity and development.”
Zander doesn’t say what happens to the A when his students don’t pull their weight. His point here is to help people we work with to remove the barriers that block achievement--and to embrace the mindset of giving an A, by letting go of rigid mindsets that keep people pegged.
Zander applied this kind of thinking to his conducting and it transformed him from being a dictator, to an orchestrator of collaboration. This approach opened the door for musicians to speak more freely with him about their concerns -- about the way a piece of music ought to be played, for example, and he discovered that "the player who looks the least engaged may be the most committed member of the group." This new openness in communication had a huge effect on the morale of the orchestra, improving the performance of both conductor and players.
It's a nice variation on Appreciative Inquiry and one of the most useful things I took away from the book is Zander's invitation to stop thinking in good/bad splits and ask the question 'Did I make a contribution?' I've asked myself that question on numerous occasions over the past month or so - it's such a forgiving position to take - the answer is invariably 'yes'. It's also useful to ask if I experience others as making a contribution and the answer to that question is generally 'yes' also. The invitation is really about focussing on 'good enough' rather than on 'the best' - a little bit of the reality principle mixed with a soupçon of humility - I like it.
There are plenty of us eager to give ourselves to the arts.....But unless we are given the same authority to reinvent and reshape organizations as you yourselves were given, we are not interested. -- a point of view that raises far more questions about an organization's capacity for change than about the identity of an heir apparent.
How interesting is that in the context of new generations? and how relevant for all kinds of organisations?
A Harvard Business School study looked at job satisfaction. Orchestra players came just below prison guards. Chamber musicians came in at number 1. What’s the difference? The presence of a conductor.
Boston Philharmonic Conductor Ben Zander, speaking at Leaders in London 2007
The leader, according to Zander, is the one who is masterful at creating and holding distinctions. Learning and leading is not about the transference of information, from conductor to orchestra or leader to employee. It is about the opening up of new categories to help people make sense of and thrive in a fast-changing world in which existing categories are not creative enough. "Framemakers create new frames. There is no problem that can’t be solved if you are willing to make a new frame, a new category."
I've mentioned this video before - A Vision of Students Today - from a working group of Kansas State University students and faculty and now Professor Michael Wesch has outlined in detail the process that went into creating the piece and it's a fascinating example of reflection, reflexivity and participant observation in action. He outlines a five step process which includes inquiry, formal research, and my favourite aspect of it all is the open ended questions he used to start the process such as:
What is it like being a student today?
So the basic idea is to create a 3 minute video highlighting the most important characteristics of students today - how they learn, what they need to learn, their goals, hopes, dreams, what their lives will be like, and what kinds of changes they will experience in their lifetime.
We already know some things from previous research (and if you know of any interesting statistics, please list them along with the source). Others we will need to find out by doing a class survey. Please add whatever you want to know or present.
The data were captured in a Google document which he has made available here and of course the final video is a masterful piece of work.
The more I consult and the more I'm embedded in my own research the more I know that finding the right question to kick start a process is where the energy needs to go. Finding a creative way of engaging a client unlocks so much energy and very often that means flinging our own hypotheses about what's going on out the window.
The annual meeting of ISPSO takes place in Philadelphia between 20 and 22 June this year. The title of this conference is Meaning and Motivation at work. If you are interested in how organisations 'really work'; and are curious about how emotion and unconscious processes influence how and what gets done then this gathering of consultants, managers and academics is the place to be. Before the main part of the proceedings there are four days of professional development workshops (16 - 19 June) open to anyone to attend. The questions being covered this year include:
How does one effectively market psychoanalytic work?
How does photography introduce new power into understanding organizations?
When consulting or coaching assignments involve working through impasse, what methods can encourage transformation?
What can organizations do to build resistance to corruption in their work?
There are any more fascinating topics - so if you are in the Philadelphia area and are curious about a psychoanalytic approach to working and organising check out the full schedule here.
There's more information about ISPSO here and the full conference schedule is available here.
This page contains an archive of all entries posted to Interactions - Creative Strategies for Business in the Leadership category. They are listed from oldest to newest.
