Implementation – The Overlooked Root Cause

Posted on June 28, 2011 by crosbyod

A recent group discussion entitled “Should Failure be Rewarded” inspired me to ponder botched implementation as a persistant yet overlooked root cause of failure in most organizations. Here’s my response, elaborated on for this blog:

Insist on a thoughtful analysis of “failures.” Reward people for learning and applying lessons from failure. Companies fail to implement social and technical solutions on a regular basis, yet rarely learn from their mistakes. Instead they blame the solutions and move on to the “next best thing.” In those cases, how they implement is the root cause, but rarely considered in a serious way. As George Santayana said, “Those who cannot learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”

By reward I simply mean reinforce learning and applying lessons learned. Challenge the behavior of moving on without objective analysis. It’s tempting to move on without thoughtful analysis because “failure” is embarressing and disapointing to whomever was involved. But the lessons learned can potentially far surpase the value of whatever “failed.”

For more food for thought, here’s a piece I wrote a few years back:

Anatomy of a Failed Implementation – A Cautionary tale

In a culture that prides itself on rational decision-making, irrationality temporarily took charge, and nobody noticed.

Wow, thought the CEO, performance is much better at plant Alpha. What happened? When he found out (“we implemented XYZ”), he said something like,
“everyone should do this!” And hence, another corporate initiative was launched.

The First Nail in the Coffin, or Lessons Learned  #1: Be Wary of Mandating Change. As outlined in Human Factors 1.2 (available for free download at our website at www.crosbyod.com), mandated change generates extraordinary resistance. Use it sparingly, be prepared to lead it with a very hands-on style, and allow people as much influence as possible within the overall goals of the mandate.

The GM of Alpha plant, who was genuinely pleased with XYZ and the people who delivered it, conveyed the good news to the vendor. “You’re going to be busy. The CEO wants this fleet-wide!” The vendor was thrilled. Yet vaguely troubled. He was advised he would be working through the site GMs, instead of the CEO who had initiated the change. Confident after a long string of successes, he ignored the warning bells in his head. “After all,” he reasoned , “the GMs are no slouches. If they want it at their plants, they can make it happen.” Of course, the converse is also true. He who can makeit happen can make it die, intentionally or unintentionally, by simply focusing their energy elsewhere.

Coffin Nail #2: Don’t bobble your hand-offs. Sponsorship hand-offs should not be taken lightly. If there must be a hand off, carefully manage the transition, or consider canceling. The odds that the next person will have the same passion that you do about the thing that you started are low, no matter how fabulous the initiative may be.

Meanwhile, far off the radar of the vendor, the ship of fleet standardization had set sail. The CEO and other company leaders had been tackling a tough problem. Success had led to the acquisition of many plants, with a resulting mish-mash of processes, systems, equipment, procedures, and cultures. No one wanted to change, so HQ began pushing for the sites to agree on or develop best practices. Progress was made, but at a price. The sites bickered, delayed, and postured, while at the same time bonding in their resentment of standardization. Project XYZ, before it was even launched, was quickly lumped in by many as one more element of the corporate initiative.

Coffin Nail #3: Learn from your other implementations, and consider their impact on new initiatives. If people are miserable about what’s already happening, they’re going to be miserable about whatever is next.

Despite feeling overwhelmed with multiple initiatives and the demands of daily operations, the sites bucked up and began complying with the directive to implement XYZ. The Bravo GM filled in her Assistant. “Find out about this XYZ. The CEO says we have to do it. Let’s make sure we get scheduled before these guys get tied up with the other plants.”

The Assistant was anxious to book the resource and meet his GM’s expectations. Without a clear understanding of what XYZ is, the Assistant contacted the vendor and assured them that Bravo was “fully committed.” They were, after all, a strong performing plant, and the Assistant reflected that confidence. “The GM wants this done, and we’re going to do it.”

Coffin Nail #4: Overconfidence. Success breeds it.

Three other plants jumped on board, a detailed schedule was set, and the on-site planning began. Unfortunately the Bravo GM was called away to the corporate HQ, and missed the planning process. “Don’t worry,” the Assistant assured the vendor, “we have the Plant Manager. He can make this thing happen.” The Plant Manager assured the vendor that XYZ fit well with their current strategy, and that Bravo was ready to go.

Coffin Nail #5: Two many priorities. Every corporation seems prone to this malady. It’s better to implement a few things well, than to implement a plethora poorly.

At Charlie plant, the GM leveled with the vendor that he was concerned because he had no idea what XYZ was, and was only proceeding “because we have to…”

Coffin Nail #6: Compliance versus Ownership. If the change agent is doing all the communicating, sponsorship has failed.

During the planning session the Charlie GM began to see how XYZ could fit their site strategy. His interest grew, and he confirmed the decision to proceed. The next meetings went even better. The Delta GM had used XYZ in the past with strong results, and the Echo GM had been looking for a solution like XYZ. He was eager to lead the charge. At each site the GMs (and the Bravo Plant Manager) agreed to inform their sites about XYZ. Local sponsorship seemed to be in place.

Soon after, as the sun was rising on a beautiful Monday morning at Bravo, an Engineering Manager named Flo arrived at her desk to begin another harried week at work. As she began to dig through her to do list, her manager called. “We need you right away in room B. We’re implementing something called XYZ and I need people to participate.” “You’re kidding,” said Flo, reacting to the late notice. “I have a huge pile of work to do. What is this thing?” “I don’t really know,” admitted her boss. “I think it’s part of fleet standardization. They did it at Alpha. I know it’s ridiculous, but we’ve got to do it. Go check it out and tell me what you think.” “Great,” thought Flo, as she hurried to the meeting. “What will these idiots think of next.”

Flo wasn’t alone. Many of the personnel present hadn’t received word of the meeting until the Friday before. One had even interrupted his vacation. Worse yet, the GM still wasn’t present, and the Plant Manager greeted the vendor moments before the opening session, asking, “do you want me to say something before this begins?”

Coffin Nail #7: Communication Breakdown, ain’t it a Drag. Poor communication compounds resistance. See coffin nail #5 for a likely root cause.

Aghast, the vendor responded. “Yes! You were going to explain how XYZ fits into your overall plant strategy. Remember?” The Plant Manager, however, had been pre-occupied since the planning session covering the GM’s absence as well as their own duties, and had put minimal effort into preparing the site for XYZ. He winged a quick introduction. The personnel gathered for the kickoff were in no mood to listen, and the Plant Manager’s speech did little to bring them on board. He handed the ball back to the vendor and took a seat.

Coffin Nail #8: Kickoffs do matter. If you can’t explain clearly why you’re doing something, why do it?

As word spread that XYZ had been implemented at Alpha, things only got worse. “Those guys at Alpha need all the help they can get.” “If Alpha did it, we sure don’t want it here!”

Coffin Nail #10: Site complacency. Sites that have been performing well tend to dismiss outside resources and feedback, especially from sites that have struggled.

Sensing that their leaders had doubts, the focus shifted subtly from implementing to critiquing. The leaders present were poorly positioned to dissuade this behavior, uncertain themselves about the value of XYZ. Midway through the first session they informed the vendor they had to leave “in order to deal with issues at the plant.” Although many of those present warmed up to the vendor and the product, the were not nearly as vocal as the dissenters.

Coffin Nail #11: Systems cater to the unhappy minority. Just because they are loud, doesn’tmake them more valid. Wise leaders listen to the quiet as well. Hard work, and even harder if the loud are telling you what you want to hear.

Feedback from the vocal few was sent to the GM, questioning implementation and suggesting radical changes in XYZ. Bravo’s leadership began to wonder if XYZ “was a good fit for their site.” Word spread quickly to the other GMs. XYZ, after one botched kickoff, was essentially doomed.

Coffin Nail #12: Critique was focused on the product and the personnel delivering the product, not on the corporation’s approach to implementation. Tempting targets, because they are “them” (and the corporation is “us”), but probably not the root cause. The root cause almost certainly lies in flawed implementation. That is a cause worth understanding, because it is within your control, and will impact future implementation performance.

The vendor and their staff left the site scratching their heads. They wracked their brains thinking about what they could do better to make the next kickoff go smoother. They incorporated some of Bravo’s written feedback, but rejected ideas that they believed would impair the effectiveness of the product. Because of this, they began to be perceived as “defensive and unresponsive.”

Coffin Nail #13: Labeling people adds insult to injury. If you have concerns, be direct. Talk to people, not about them to others. Scapegoating diverts from root cause (see Human Factors 3.3 and 7.1 for more detail, available for free download at www.crosbyod.com).

The following week began smoother. The Bravo GM was there, and after meeting the vendor, realized he had seen good results from a product similar to XYZ. He kicked off the session with a clear message about what could be gained. The work went closer to the norm, and the feedback, while still mixed, no longer contained the more radical suggestions. The vendor had reason to believe XYZ had turned the corner. Little did they know…they were a wildebeest in a system that feeds on wildebeests. As the mid-managers at Bravo put it, “We call it the wounded wildebeest syndrome. No one wants to be the wildebeest. When a member of the lead team starts challenging one of us public, the others join in, like a pack of lions. It.s like they smell blood. The other wildebeests watch in stunned silence. The lead team calls it coaching. If the wildebeest fights back, they call them defensive. The best thing is to keep your mouth shut and not make waves.” The vendor wanted to talk to the GM, but was advised not to. Even though the second session had gone better, the smell of blood was in the air.

Coffin Nail #14: Culture matters. If the culture is to pile on, only the brave and/or the foolish will challenge the pack.

Echo plant.s kickoff was next. By now the project was snake bit. Echo’s GM, who had intended to lead XYZ in a hands on manner, accepted a lateral transfer and departed just days before the kickoff. The new GM arrived the same week as the project. Key leaders were pulled away midstream to meet with her, and for a site visit from the CEO. Despite these distractions, Echo’s implementation had the smoothest start to date, and positive feedback from site personnel. The vendor was hopeful.

Coffin Nail #15: Good news travels slow. Bad news travels fast. Bad news can kill a project before good news has a chance to catch up.

The end, however, was already near. Charlie plant was next, and the GM had been pulled offsite since the planning session. A bewildered department head introduced himself to the vendor moments before the session. “I just learned that I’m supposed to kick this off,” he said, sheepishly. “I haven’t been told a word about what it is.” It was another rough start, but the vendor could see a positive trend. After all, there was finally GM involvement at Bravo, Echo and Charlie were underway, and Delta was next, where the GM was knowledgeable and enthusiastic about XYZ.

Again, as she is wont to do, fate intervened. Delta plant took an unplanned and costly outage. XYZ would have to be delayed. Soon after, the Delta GM left the company. The lead team at Delta dropped XYZ. Like a row of dominoes, it was cancelled throughout the fleet. Time, money, and the potential gains of XYZ had all been lost. The coffin was nailed shut.

Moral of the Story:  Good programs and products are often botched by bad implementation (see Human Factors 1.3, 2.2, and 7.2 for sound advice on managing change, available for free download at www.crosbyod.com). Learning from mistakes is difficult, because mistakes are embarrassing. Failure to learn from mistakes (such as botched implementations) means you’re doomed to repeat them.

Posted in Change Management | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Organizational Culture

Posted on April 5, 2011 by crosbyod

A colleague wrote: I quote from page 23 of the Chapter “No mere Ape’ in *Ramachandran VS (2010) The Tell-Tale Brain ? Unlocking the Mystery of Human Nature, Random House India.*

“….By hyper-developing the mirror-neuron system, evolution in fact turned culture into the new genome. Armed with culture, humans could adapt to hostile new environments and figure out how to exploit formerly inaccessible food sources in just one or two generations – instead of the hundreds or thousands of generations such adaptations would have taken to accomplish through genetic evolution. Thus culture became a significant new source of evolutionary pressure, which helped slect for brains that had even better mirror-neuron systems and the imitative learning associated with them. The result was one of the many self-amplifying snow ball effects that culminated in Homo Spaiens, the ape that looked into its own mind and saw the whole cosmos reflected inside…”

To which I replied:

Thanks for this reference. I look forward to reading the book. To the extent the following is true, it helps explain why culture is so seductive. Once we are part of it, it is hard to see it for what it is or to resist simply fitting in. Layer on the deep rooted desire to be part and identify with whatever we are part of (nations, work groups, etc.) and we are prone to being blind to other possibilities. I see this with groups that have only formed within the last few minutes or hours…invite critical feedback from another group and people reliably bristle at the comments and defend their own (to the outsiders the first response is something like, “you just don’t understand…” rather than exploring the feedback for learning, even when they have been trained to do so).

Going back to earlier threads in this string, the concept of fields in organizations is rooted (as I understand it) in the work of Murray Bowen and Edwin Friedman. They talk of an “emotional field” which gets activated whenever anyone bumps up against the norms of the group (no matter how dysfunctional those norms may be). Essentially there is a moment of stress (as in a moment of awkward silence in a meeting when someone has said or done something outside the norm), which is an unspoken (although words may be spoken) and unaware invitation to get back in line with what is “acceptable.” This is the pull, like a magnet on iron filings (a metaphor I first heard from family systems expert Denny Minno back in the early 1980s…he possibly got it from Bowen) that requires great presence of mind to resist.

Finally I just have to say that of course culture (for want of a better word) is real and directly impacts productivity. A famous example is the behavior in Toyota of immediately thanking subordinates when they raise issues or even stop the production line for perceived issues (a behavior I hear they may have slipped away from in recent years at least on some of their engineering decisions). The opposite behavior, that of punishing subordinates that raise “disturbing issues” literally or more likely with an unintentional yet still damaging cold shoulder (see “emotional field,” above), is a plague in most organizations. That is culture at its most insidious and it is absolutely a function of leadership to either mindlessly support what they are used to or to intentionally create something better (i.e. an environment where peoples true perceptions flow upwards and are known so that the choice of exploration and action exists).

And it is a function of OD to help leaders (at all levels) see what they are not seeing, including the possibilities for something better.

Posted in Culture Change | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

More Thoughts on Authority

Posted on February 18, 2011 by crosbyod

A colleague wrote today on our list serve, prompting the following thoughts:

Gil,

I liked the thoughts you offered in your note below. Thanks for taking
the time to share them. Your comment: “Because of human reactions to authority, it is easier to muck up communication than to get it right”,
caught my eye and intrigued me. When you have time, I wonder if you’d be
kind enough to elaborate on that and say more?

Thanks & Regards,

Bob

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the interest. My work is grounded in Bowen and Friedman’s family systems theory (as applied to organizations), attachment theory’s implications for EQ, and a mix of OD theory, with a big debt to Kurt Lewin and John Wallen, as well as others (including my father, Robert P. Crosby, who lead the way into the applied integration of the above which I continue). As such, authority relationships are at the heart of my interventions. I view hierarchy as a very sound organizing structure, which if not managed in a mature fashion, is also the source of much dysfunction and lost productivity.

What do I mean by mature? The following is the fifth of five principles I describe in my book, Fight, Flight, Freeze. I coach on this (and the other four principles) one on one, through intact work team interventions, through whole systems interventions (large group planning sessions), and through experiential learning using t-group methodology, at every level of my client systems (preferably with the layers and roles mixed in the same learning environment). For high performance, people must learn to manage authority rationally, as a necessary role with specific decision-making authority, not as an ego dilemma.

Principle #5: Personal Authority in the Workplace includes the ability to relate to all other human beings as peers, including superiors and subordinates, while simultaneously respecting, clarifying, and supporting the positional authority, yours and theirs, essential to organizing work.

This is easier said than done. Most either overfunction (micro-manage) or underfunction in functional leadership roles, and fail to understand their emotional impact on their subordinates and the larger system. Friedman outlined a nice model of the consequences, which he called the 5 symptoms of a chronically anxious system:

1. Reactivity (people succumb to the impulses of their primitive brain, either tending to fight – often covertly – or for the vast majority, tending towards flight or protective behavior, such as keeping one’s mouth shut, or being very careful about one says)

2. Displaced blame (pointing fingers at individuals and groups)

3. Quick fix mentality (a plague…as Friedman puts it, “you can’t make a bean grow by pulling on it”)

4. Herding (people are more concerned with their rights than their responsibilities)

5. Lack of self-differentiated leadership (this is a concept which requires more thought, but again a simple Friedman analogy is that one is either a step-up transformer in the systems emotional field, adding counter-productive stress, or one is a step-down transformer, creating a calm focused tone)

People at any level failing to manage their own emotionality add to dysfunction. The higher up, the bigger the impact. Fortunately, EQ can be learned. Unfortunately, it is under-appreciated as a performance variable, or taught with traditional classroom methods, when the critical learning must come through live interaction, in which the practitioner must put their skin in the game as a leader-learner.

In sum, in our earliest pre-cognitive relationships we all learn patterns of interacting with and being in positions of authority, and if we don’t learn a mature and responsible approach as an adult, we will live our lives reacting, blaming, and reliving our earliest patterns. Translated into a large organization, the result is a lot of needless drama, crushed spirits, and lost productivity.

IMHO

I hope that provides some clarity.

Regards,

Gil

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Boss Stress – Or the 5 Characteristics of Chronically Anxious Systems

Posted on April 26, 2010 by crosbyod

My posting from a nuclear power discusion group on Linked In:

Kate brought up another critical point – “boss stress.” That’s actually one of the biggest variables in any human system. Edwin Friedman pointed out 5 behavioral characteristics of systems where the leaders are a source of unnecessary stress (they are ramping up the stress in the system, instead of calmly and consistantly dampening it):

Reactivity – People go into fight and flight reactions such as keeping their mouth shut/avoiding the boss (read my book, Fight, Flight, Freeze!)

Herding – People over-identify with their own groups (us vs them) and are more concerned about their rights than their responsibilities

Displaced Blame – People point in every other direction rather than calmly looking at thier own role in what has gone wrong/what could make it better

Quick Fix Mentality – Speaks for itself, although one manifestation is trying to implement too many solutions at the same time

Absence of Non-Anxious Leadership – This is the root cause of all of the above and it replicates itself in a dysfunctional system

For more detail on what to do about these systemic dynamics, read the white paper I have posted on my Linked In profile.

Posted in Systems Thinking | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Challenging Lewin, and the foundations of OD

Posted on February 8, 2010 by crosbyod

The following is my response to a post by a colleague on the OD Network list serve. I hope you agree it was worth re-posting here. After mentioning a few places we converged, I wrote the following:

I do think I diverge from your initial post in its implication that there is a need to in some way re-invent od because the old model is losing relevance (my words, not yours), and to the words you wrote below:

“When I suggested we need to “re-engineer OD” what I had in mind was more along the lines of re-examining our assumptions. I think many if not most of the methods (i.e., the tools and techniques) of OD are sound. It’s what ____ calls the “approach” that concerns me. For example, I think a key underlying assumption of OD can be found in the “unfreeze-change-refreeze” model. That suggests a degree of initial stability that needs to be de-stabilized so that change can be effected and then re-stabilized. Ho, ho, ho. Another, related, assumption can be found in force-field analysis (which also implies a degree of stability, even if it is dynamic stability. It presumes we can identify and then manipulate those forces so as to make the situation move in desired directions. Ho, ho, ho.”

I have noticed others posting similar comments over the years. I believe that your undertanding of the elements of Lewin’s theory that you are challenging and/or rejecting is different than how I understand the same theories (I’m not claiming I speak for Lewin by the way…I am only speaking for how I understand his theories). First off, to the extent that any stability is not an illusion (and that is debatable), there are indeed current conditions (beliefs, processes, behaviors, moods, etc) in any human situation that are stable, and indeed perhaps even stuck. There is also almost always value to be gained by shifting to a more desired/productive way of being/doing in some manner, and “locking that in” to the extent possible. That is the “freeze-change-unfreeze” model. It is a way to describe every instance when one moves from one state to another. It in no way implies that the future is fixed and unchanging, or that the past/present is totally stable. It’s simply a description of process. It’s what I do in every intervention.

Force Field analysis I use to get people focused on retraining forces, rather than leaping to solutions. They have deep and productive conversations when guided in this way. I think people can identify some of what is holding them back (we all have blind spots, including whatever blind spots I, the facilitator, bring), and that it is then fruitful to strategize on how to address those “forces.” When implementation of solutions to the retraining forces is well organized (part of my job is to help them organize implementation, borrowing from my father’s community organizing experience), then significant change is usually realized.

So since these concepts work for me, and for my clients, I’ll continue to use them. That doesn’t mean I don’t incorporate the new that I understand, such as EQ/brain science. Some of the new, such as self-organizing systems theory, I have always been interested in, but don’t think the application to human systems is all that useful. It leaves out the mammalian element of human nature, in which authority relations are a deep and I believe important organizing principle. So I ponder, incorporate what makes sense to me, and reject what does not, limited like all humans by my own knowledge/beliefs about how things are.

Again, maybe I’m misunderstanding what you are saying about Lewin. If so I welcome more information, as such comments have always left me scratching my head.

Regards,

Gil

Posted in Organization Development | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Leadership is the “root cause”

Posted on September 18, 2009 by crosbyod

I’m fresh back from a ten day journey through London, Krakow, Budapest and Bucharest. What I saw and heard in my business conversations convinces me more that I’m on the right track thinking about the systemic influence of leadership behavior. Nuclear organizations the world over are putting great effort into nuclear safety, yet the most important ingredient is the least addressed: that the way the formal leaders in the organization manage authority either encourages or discourages the people who work for them in countless ways, including whether or not they will bother to raise concerns. No program, no matter how clever and well funded, can assure the right behaviors in a system where the workforce feels beaten down. And this feeling is easier to trigger than most leaders realize. I meet highly motivated people every day, working for highly motivated bosses, who just don’t want their boss to know that they have concerns. It is a natural tendency to want the boss to think that one has things under control – a tendency counterproductive in many many ways.

To truly create “nuclear safety culture” requires leadership at the top that recognizes that a core function of leadership is ensuring that each subsequent layer is speaking their truth about what is happening, both socially and technically, to the people above, sideways, and below. Only intentional commitment to a free flow of information can assure the best safety environment. That productivity and morale both rest on the same pillars should make such commitment a standard, rather than a rarity. Only in such a climate will other programmatic approaches truly bear fruit.

Posted in Culture Change, Leadership | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The Nuclear Industries Blind Spot (and they’re not the only ones)

Posted on September 1, 2009 by crosbyod

I wrote this as part of a Linkedin Nulcear Safety Culture Group. In sum, the nuclear industry, and many outside that industry, while understanding some of the behaviors and processes necessary for healthy culture, don’t have a clear grasp of the emotional nature of culture and human systems, and the role that leadership must play to set the optimum emotional tone.

Here’s my response to the group:

Hi Madalina, Thanks for the invitation, and I am very much looking forward to my upcoming visit to Bucharest.

Looking through your conversation I have several thoughts. For one, I agree that a sound management system “should ideally encompass all elements.” The same cultural elements that support nuclear safety, such as encouraging eomplyees to voice concerns, are also essential to industrial safety, quality, morale, high performance, and so on. You and Mr. Holohan cite some very useful sources. Unfortunately they have a common blindspot. The key variable in human systems is the leadership’s capcity to create a climate where hierarchy provides structure (who is responsible for what, who decides what) but doesn’t fuel fear. Fear is natural in a hierarchy (call it caution, if you are more comfortable with that), and it takes intentional and consistant behavior to reduce it so that relible information flows. This requires leaders with high EQ and a rational knowledge of the emotional nature of human systems.

INPO recognizes this blindspot in their human performance coaching to the US industry, and is embarking on a leadership development program. Unfortunately I’m afraid it will be primarily a traditional classroom approach. One doesn’t learn about and change how the manage emotion by reading about it or listening to theory. Some of that sets the stage, but the reliable path to learning about EQ is through dissecting the emotions in one’s own interactions. This takes live unscripted interaction with skilled guidance and coaching. I helped deliver that type of learning to PECO Nuclear for years, but it is little known or understood in the rest of the industry.

Posted in Culture Change, Leadership, Safety Culture, Survey Feedback | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Don’t Chase the Stray Cow – Lessons on Leadership and Human Systems (from my upcoming book “Leadership Can Be Learned”)

Posted on August 19, 2009 by crosbyod

“That’s just like my cows.” I’ll never forget Norm, a down to earth engineer who had been dealing with and managing people for decades, speaking up during the retreat I was facilitating. I had just drawn a bell shaped curve on a flipchart to illustrate the following one of Edwin Freidman’s lessons on self-differentiated leadership and systems thinking. 

 The lesson is simple, but profound. In families, and again in the vast majority of work groups, there will be some individuals who are easy for you to relate to, many who are in the middle, and one (or more) who drive you crazy. If the leader is thinking “non-systemically” (as most do in this day and age), the temptation is to focus a disproportionate amount of time and energy on the “problem” person. This happens in families, and since family patterns are replicated at work, the possibility is there in all work groups. Since we are creatures of habit, most leaders fall into the trap of tying to “fix” the person who becomes, in the language of family systems, “the identified patient.” The problem is, it’s the very pattern of focusing on that person (or persons), that pushes them further away.

 Here the wisdom of Kurt Lewin, a founding father of organizational development, parallels that of family systems theory. Lewin was a true interdisciplinary thinker, and amongst other innovations, he applied physics to understanding human behavior. If you push, people push back. The act of resistance is fueled by the attempt to win the identified patient over, no matter how well intentioned or how logical the attempt may be. As Freidman put it, “You can’t reason a man out of something they weren’t reasoned into.”

Yet most leaders drag themselves down into a fruitless contest of wills. “If I could just convince _____, or get rid of them, then all my problems would be over.” But in this model, it’s the very act of focusing on the identified patient that gives them their power in the system, and diminishes the leader. In meeting after meeting the leader says “any questions” and then turn their attention to the identified patient like a moth to a flame, while others passively watch, thinking “here we go again.” Conversations with superiors, peers, and possibly even family come back time and again to “what can I do about _____?” The longer the pattern persists, the more the people in the middle are turned off to the entire reoccurring drama. Although they may share some of the leader’s reaction to the identified patient, they also have some empathy for a peer who obviously is in disfavor, and some will get sick and tired of the “bullying” of the boss, no matter how rational and reasonable the boss attempts to be while they work on the identified patient. The system is stuck. Eventually the leader and/or possibly the identified patient will go, but the pattern will almost certainly re-emerge.

 It’s a systems issue, and it requires a systemic solution. Ironically, all systemic solutions start with individual awareness and behavior. That’s what this book is about, how to understand yourself using an interdisciplinary approach, and how to apply that knowledge to leadership. The approach, drawing heavily from brain research, emotional intelligence, family systems thinking, the field of organizational development, and the author’s experience working with individuals, groups and whole systems during the past 25 years, has been proven time and again. The result is, please forgive me for using a much over used word that none the less rings true, transformational. Leaders and systems that have consistently applied these principles, the most famous being PECO Nuclear after the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) was shut down by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (or NRC)  in the late 1980s, having consistently become peak performers. You can do the same.

 Consider again our group, with its leader and identified patient. To move forward the leader must be clear about where they are heading, and then give each group member the time and respect they are due. To break the pattern they will have to consistently speak with others. When the identified patient pipes in, the leader should make sure they understand the message, clarify any actions that they are going to take, and then move on to exploring current conditions with other group members. They should eliminate wasted time by not trying to win the identified patient over. They should also not go to the other extreme of ignoring them. They need each person, and would be wise to relate with each proportionately. If they genuinely do so, they will strengthen their bond with the majority. If they strengthen their bond with the majority, and move forward towards their goals, the identified patient will lose their power in the system, and possibly even join in.

 Don’t hold your breath on that last one though! If that remains the leader’s goal, they are still worrying about the wrong thing! What’s important is the health of the overall system, and to move the system forward towards the goals. To do so a leader must recognize that they actually create resistance by getting sucked into it. The identified patient is just a symptom of dysfunctional behavior on the part of the leader! The only way out for the leader is to recognize the pattern, and change their own behavior.

 That is the beauty of systems thinking – the power is in our own hands more than we have been led to believe by the traditional thinking of our times and culture. You don’t have to change them. You have to change yourself. As Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”

 “That’s just like my cows,” said Norm. “When I bring them back in from pasture in the evening, one always wanders off. If I chase it, the entire herd scatters! However, if I stick with the herd, the stray cow always returns.”

 Humans aren’t cows, but we are mammals, and relationship is vital to our development and to our behavior in organizations. Leadership requires an understanding, intuitively and/or through learning, of how connected we really are. This book will examine other patterns of human systems, like the one above, and how to lead in them. But first you must understand your own development. In the famous words ascribed to George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This is as true for individuals as it is for societies. Unfortunately, critical development occurs during the first two years of life while we are pre-cognitive. There is no way to remember it, because the capacity for cognitive memory didn’t exist during the formative events. But we can “remember the past” by seeing the pattern of behavior in the present. And by seeing them, we can consciously become more stable and impactful leaders. The next chapter explores how we become our current selves, and how to continue becoming who we want to be. Without that type of self-knowledge, and the humility that comes with it, one is in no position to lead.

Posted in Leadership, Systems Thinking | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Managing the Wired Generation

Posted on August 11, 2009 by crosbyod

I wrote this in response to my friend Mark Schaefer. He writes a pithy and practical marketing blogg which fouces on the us eof social media and has a large international following. In Mark’s last article, he posted a provocative question: Is social media re-wiring a generation?

The answer of course, is yes. Not only is it re-wiring the current generation of young adults, it is re-wiring the rest of us as well.

Technology has always done so. Although we’re accustomed to them now, the telephone, television, and automobile each created radical changes in society. Mark wrote of a time when our primary neural development came through “intense socialization with family members and friends, physical activity and interacting with nature in some way,” yet all of these technologies also eroded the same patterns of socialization, and were lamented (for good reason) by the “older generation” of their times.

Implications for management

Some believe our emerging wired culture is leading to a global increase in ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and I tend to agree. I particularly worry about the impact of increased ADD on leadership, as the tendency to jump from one initiative to another without ever getting the preceding implementation right is already a plague in modern organizations.

Again, these tendencies didn’t start with the latest wave of innovation. But the effects do seem to be sinking deeper. In my work with young engineers I find they are consistently bored, have a low tolerance for authority figures (like many adults but with even less perspective they quickly conclude that the problem is that “the boss is an idiot”), will simply “drop out of the game” without weighing the long term consequences, and will try to communicate electronically especially if there is any discomfort or conflict involved.

The “internal” solution

The key however lies not so much in analyzing these youngsters, but rather in analyzing our own reactions to them. Impatience doesn’t help. These young employees need hands-on and accessible management. They need mentoring and support on how to handle conflict face-to-face. They need to know how what they are doing fits into the big picture, and they need to be engaged in work that is as vital and important to the organization as possible.

The boss who has young hires and expects them to function independently is fooling him or herself (and giving in to their own ADD tendencies). These people need mentoring in how to become adults, just as the generation preceding them needed mentoring (that would be us), and even more so.

 

Face it, many adults today try to handle conflicts with co-workers by e-mailing the person in the next cubicle over, or by avoiding them altogether. And many adults are very uncomfortable being an authority figure or dealing with authority figures. For most, no matter how good the relationship has been, overcoming the fear of delivering bad news to the boss is a life-long struggle. Working on your own EQ when it comes to authority relationships is one of the best gifts you can give to the next generation.

Finally, there are always benefits from new technologies. My eldest son as a young teen went through a period where he very rarely opened up (nothing new there, right?) until he and I started texting each other. Then there was a flood of communication, which opened the door for even better “in person” communication.

So the key is not to try to kill the new technology, and the behavioral impact. That is a fool’s errand. They key is to continue to do what humans must do, and often don’t do enough of at work, which is to relate in person to the people that are important to them.

Posted in Generation Gap | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Resistance to Change

Posted on July 20, 2009 by crosbyod

 I think it’s helpful for leaders to get it that “resistance” is a wired response of the reptilian brain. The reptilian brain is constantly monitoring the environment for danger, and any change in the environment increases risk (from a pure survival perspective). Our instinctual response is to be on the alert during times of change. Even long wished for changes are to likely to be greeted with initially stressed responses, whether in relationships or organizations. The wise leader understands this and manages their own emotions/is patient in the face of “resistance.” They structure genuine ways to engage their people in critiquing and implementing the change (much as you described).

 

The reactive leader/organization gets tense in the face of the tension, and fuels conflict by labeling people as “resistant.” They may even blame the victims by buying them a book or by putting them all through a class on how to “embrace change.” IMHO this shifts the focus from how they are leading (which is the more powerful systemic leverage point) to how everyone else is following, thus comforting the leaders (they aren’t the problem), insulting the followers (they are the problem), lining the pockets of “change management consultants,” wasting everyone’s time, eroding the relationship between the leaders and the followers, and decreasing the likelihood of successful implementation.

Posted in Change Management | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment