Generative Power

The following is an excerpt is from Chris Crosby’s upcoming book:

Organization Alignment: Authority, Power, and Results

Generative Power

The intersection between authority, power, and love is where you will find a critical ingredient as to whether your organization is successful or not. However, since the words power and love are so confused in our culture I turn to Adam Kahane for the clarity I am seeking to convey. Kahane, in his recent book Power and Love synthesizes a view of power and love from some of the great minds of our time such as Martin Luther King Jr and Paul Tillich. When the people in your organization learn how to leverage their power and love as defined below and in the ways outlined throughout this book, then you will reach record results.

Tillich defines power as “the drive of everything to realize itself, with increasing intensity and extensity.” So power in this sense is the drive to achieve one’s purpose, to get one’s job done, to grow. He defines love as “the drive towards the unity of the separated.” So love in this sense is the drive to reconnect and make whole that which has become or appears fragmented. These two ways of looking at power and love, rather than the more common ideas of oppression and romantic love, are at the core of his book Power and Love and reflect the type of power and love that, if nurtured and utilized, helps organizations thrive.

In the words of Martin Luther King drawing on his doctoral studies of Tillich’s work:

“Power properly understood is nothing but the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political, and economic change…And one of the great problems of history is that the concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites─polar opposites─so that love is identified with the resignation of power, and power with the denial of love. Now we’ve got to get this thing right. What (we need to realize is) that power without love is reckless and abusive and love without power is sentimental and anemic.

…It is precisely this collision of immoral power with powerless morality which constitutes the major crisis of our time.”

-Martin Luther King Jr.,

“Where Do We Go From Here?”

The opposite of power and love is not hate but indifference. From here Kahane postulates two types of power: generative and de-generative. Examples of generative power in organizations are aligning the system to its real challenges, holding people accountable, ensuring conflicts get resolved so that work gets accomplished on-time and with quality between people and departments, and various forms of praise and acknowledgment to the employees for hard work and accomplishments. De-generative power can be seen as avoidance of issues, allowing employees to do whatever they want, forced separation of people or departments that must work together as a way of “coping,” punishing people for speaking out or raising up difficult work issues, and spreading negative rumors. All employees, but especially those in positions of authority, must find ways to use their power in generative ways and minimize or eliminate their use of de-generative power.

Organizations complicate these two types of power because most humans have at least some issues with authority figures leftover from childhood. Many in organizations want to pretend that authority, by the very fact that it exists, is only de-generative. My contention here is that, for the most part, those people have only known de-generative power and are blind to the promise, potential, and importance of nurturing generative power. A mature adult development stage is to recognize that bosses possess both. Yet, some need appropriate guidance, education, and opportunities to nurture and grow their use of generative power. Workplaces seduced by de-generative power are apt to think consensus is best, raising issues is tattling, controlling through indirect means is appropriate, lacking clarity about decisions is common and, worse, operating like this should be the norm.

You can nurture generative power in your organization and use it to help all employees get on the same page. Do this and you will successfully navigate the complexities of your business and dramatically improve your results.

Posted in Alignment, Culture Change, Emotional Intelligence, Leadership, Organization Development, Systems Thinking | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Robert P Crosby discusses his book, Culture Change in Organizations

Posted in Culture Change, Leadership, Organization Development, Robert P Crosby | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Project and/or Whole Systems Planning Virtual Tour

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Survey Feedback/Action Research

From a letter by Robert P. Crosby:

…Later John Scherer and I began a company emphasizing survey feedback as much earlier developed by Floyd Mann and Rensis Likert, colleagues of Dr. Ronald Lippitt who had become both a champion of and master of survey feedback (contrasted to surveys with their data not fed back to each discreet work unit). Done well, there is no more powerful organizational intervention. Ron viewed our work “…as doing more to encourage survey feedback than anyone since Mann and Likert.”

We hired Ron for a series of trainings for professionals. We sold our survey instrument to 600 companies.  To help the reader distinguish between surveys as commonly done and survey feedback, here’s an excerpt from a chapter of mine highly influenced by Ron:

We know what does not work. It does not work to survey people and not show them the results. It also does not work to survey people and have top management or an outside expert develop recommendations (prescriptions). It does not work to survey people and have a general session where results are reported and nothing visible to the employees is done. These approaches have all been tried hundreds of times and have, with rare exceptions, been found wanting. People tend to become irritable and defensive, with a resulting lowered morale and decreased work efficiency.

 WHAT DOES WORK?

Begin with the assumption that the expertise to identify problems and, especially, to work out solutions to most problems exists within the organization. The suggestions that follow encourage you to involve the participants in generating the data, interpreting the data, and forging recommendations for next steps. This assumes that the people in your organization have expertise and knowledge and that the job of management is to tap that vein of experience. The late Dr. Ronald Lippitt spoke of a fundamental right: ”They who put their pencil to the survey paper should also see and work the data” (from a private conversation with John Scherer and Robert Crosby).

 Dr. Fred Fosmire, former Vice President of Organizational and Employee Relations at Weyerhaueser, writes: “Survey feedback methods, when implemented competently by managers who are receptive to feedback, may be the most powerful way we know to improve organization effectiveness.

 …There is no more effective way than survey feedback (turning data into action) to involve people quickly at the key points of data gathering, problem solving, solution recommendation, action, and follow-through.

Survey feedback, well donewill increase morale, improve work processes, heal broken work relationships, shift culture, and put into action effective , high-performing behaviors more quickly than any other intervention.

(Excerpt from “Walking the Empowerment Tightrope,” Chapter Five, Survey Feedback, CrosbyOD Publishing, 2015 – Ebook available)

 

Posted in Organization Development, Robert P Crosby, Survey Feedback | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Interpersonal Gap – Part One

The main section of Crosby & Associates East Coast US President Gilmore Crosby’s presentation of Dr. John Wallen’s theory (12 minutes). Wallen’s four behavioral skills, the remainder of the presentation, can be accessed through the video’s link to Vimeo.

[The Interpersonal Gap]

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

Addy Clip Three – Goal Alignment

High performance is possible in any organization. In this brief video (1 minute and 41 seconds), the third in a series, our founder describes a process that quickly aligned and engaged an industrial plant that went on to meet and exceed their goals.

Posted in Alignment, Organization Development, Robert P Crosby | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Addy Clip #2 – Key Factors in Engagement

High performance is possible in any organization. In this brief video (5 minutes), the second in a series, our founder explores the steps taken to engage work groups.

Posted in Change Management, Culture Change, Leadership, Organization Development, Robert P Crosby, Safety Culture, Survey Feedback | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Authority & Performance: Addy Clip #1

High performance is possible in any system with the right blend of clear authority and engagement. In this brief video (9 minutes and 15 seconds), the first in a series, our founder explores the steps taken that have led to dramatic results time and again.

 

Posted in Alignment, Change Management, Culture Change, Emotional Intelligence, Leadership, Organization Development, Robert P Crosby, Systems Thinking, T-Groups | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Personal Authority in the Workplace (PAW)

The following set of self-differentiated leadership principles are excerpted from Fight, Flight, Freeze: Taming Your Reptilian Brain and Other Practical Approaches to Self-Improvement (Second Edition) by Gilmore Crosby. For ordering information visit: Crosbyod.com

Personal Authority in the Workplace (PAW)

PAW includes a high degree of clarity about one’s thoughts, feelings, and desires as well as the emotional freedom to choose whether or not to express these at any given moment or occasion, regardless of intense social pressures or expectations from bosses, peers, subordinates, or others.

PAW includes the ability to value one’s personal judgment consistently and to be able to make decisions and act on one’s own good judgment. This skill assumes the ability to be able at times to be an observer and critic of one’s own processes and responses.

PAW includes the ability to take responsibility for all of one’s experiences, decisions, and actions and for the consequences that flow directly from these. The underlying assumption is that one “decides” in which ways to give meaning to events. One is, therefore, constantly and continuously in the business of constructing a “personal reality:” one “chooses” an associated emotional response to every circumstance, “chooses” how to assimilate or internalize it, and “chooses” how to behave in light of these.

PAW includes the ability to connect emotionally with other people in as self-expressive and intimate a manner, or in as reserved a manner, as one freely chooses at any given time.

Finally, PAW 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.

Adopted by Gilmore Crosby from the work of Donald Williamson

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

Tuckman Revisited (Again)

I’ve always found Tuckman’s model of group development (form, storm, norm and perform) useful in understanding group dynamics. As with any individual, group or cultural awareness, if you are unaware you are more likely to be swept along in predictable and counter-productive reactions; if you are aware you can be more intentional and effective.

I was surprised by a colleague, if I understood them correctly, who asserts that you can skip “forming” by establishing productive norms from the beginning, and especially so if you are a group that is already familiar with each other through other work experiences. I’ve been pondering both points and I think there is truth to them as long as they are not held in some sort of extreme. That is, of course if you have all worked together in other ways, the process will be sped, and of course it is wise to begin establishing productive norms from the beginning. I highly recommend the later; the former is more a matter of circumstance.

Nonetheless the behaviors Tuckman noted during forming are still likely: an imbalance of focus on the leader to understand the goals, norms, and roles that they are establishing (or failing to establish), and the likelihood of some caution or passivity in the beginning. People want to know how to effectively fit in. A wise leader goes for clarity on goals, norms, and roles from the beginning, and leads in such a way as to quickly establish inclusion in the group and more balanced engagement. Wise group members also actively encourage the same.

In my mind, successful forming does not eliminate the forming dynamics…rather, it addresses them. I believe doing so is sound advice and holds true  even in a group with high past familiarity.

My colleague and I agree, on the other hand, that Tuckman’s second stage is easily misunderstood. “Storming” sounds like open and dysfunctional conflict, and if understood that way is certainly something to avoid. Tuckman, however (as far as I can tell), meant that following the initial focus on and hope for clarity and inclusion, differences start to surface. This could be out of frustration with the perceived initial shortcomings of the leader and the group, or  out of effective invitation by the leader and group members. Either way, storming is simply the inevitable surfacing of differences.

Norming in Tuckman’s model emerges from storming and is focused on you handle those differences. Do you co-create a group dynamic where people actively seek out contrasting perspectives, explore them, and then make decisions? Or does the group (almost certainly with no or low awareness) c0-create a norm of either fight (oppositional debate with a winner and a loser) or flight (people keeping their differences to themselves…or being very indirect)?

Finally (in the original model) the level of performing emerges from the norms established to handle differences (storming). Dysfunctional norms (a prevalence of fight and flight behavior) impede performance. Functional norms increase performance.

Understood as a developmental model of managing conflict in groups, Tuckman’s stages are both practical, and as far as I can tell, universal.

Tuckman eventually added adjourning, and I think it is also worth paying attention to. Even during regular weekly/daily meetings people may become more conflict avoidant and/or mentally “check out” towards the end of a meeting (or group). The leader must be intentional (starting with themselves…they may be checking out!) if they want people to “check back in.” Otherwise, if that part of the meeting really doesn’t matter, best to just end the meeting!

If you enjoyed this article and would like a more in depth on how to establish effective norms through group process, be sure to read this earlier post: Navigating Tuckman’s Stages: Leading Your Group from Forming to High Performing

Posted in Change Management, Emotional Intelligence, Leadership, Organization Development, Systems Thinking | Tagged , | 1 Comment