Tip of the day ... on supporting organisational change

Are a lot of the actions you take at work based on the common belief that 'Turkeys don't vote for Christmas'? It may be time to update yourself on Employee Engagement and letting go of 'old-school' change management practices.

A great book to read:
Axelrod  R.H. (2010) Terms of Engagement: New Ways of Leading and Changing Organizations

Question of the day ... on openness and transparency

How do we encourage Council to communicate more openly and transparently, to trust the resilience of the front line and release them as negotiators and decision-makers?

 

Your comments would be most welcomed!

Question of the day ... on economic growth

Many Councils are still trying to get to grips with major changes to their budgets and gauging the impact of the Commissioning agenda. Are we asking too much in relation to economic growth from an emotionally drained and internally focussed Local Government?

 

Safeguarding adults - finding the right risk balance

When we awaken to meet each day, we face a variety of health and safety risks
in our lives. Life is inherently full of risks, but this does not keep us from
‘taking on the day’ or even unnecessarily limiting our activities.

When working with people with dementia or other people whose life
circumstances make them more vulnerable to abuse, we assess risks and
sometimes forget that risks have benefits, such as encouraging independence,
building self-esteem, etc.

 

Observing vulnerability brings out in us a want to care and protect. Rightly so!
However when being a witness to abuse - whether in a professional role or as
an unpaid carer - our brain kicks into 'survival mode' (fight-flight-freeze) as strong
emotions often accompany our interactions with those people more vulnerable
than ourselves. These feelings may include:

• Anger (fight)
• Withdrawal (flight)
• Resignation (freeze)
• Denial (freeze)

It is not possible to switch off our 'survival mode'. As human beings our brains are
wired toprotect us from threats in our immediate environments. We have a
'natural' distrust that has kept us safe throughout history. What is important
however is to become more familiar with and acknowledge our own 'survival
mode' reactions when working inemotionally challenging circumstances. This will
not only help protect the people in our care, but also you, as the person in a
supportive role.

 

Why is it important?

 

'We (that is, every single one of us) assess risk using emotion and not logic. We
use our emotion first and then logic second to argue against, or reaffirm the
conclusion we’ve already come to from an emotional perspective.' (Source -
'Why risk assessment misses the point')

Strong emotions and the  'survival mode' reactions have a negative impact on

managing risk.

 

The ambition of protective behaviours and risk assessments is to return to
'conditions of safety'. The difficulty arises from the fact that in the world there
is no such thing as 'total safety'. 'Total safety' can only exist in an environment of
'total control' (metaphors - 'the padded room', 'the straight jacket' or 'wrapped in
cotton wool'). Life is full of risks, and even more complicated is that taking risks
provides benefits.

 

Examples:

- When leaving the house you could get run over by a bus, but the activity
means visiting friends and family.

- When doing a parachute jump your chute may not open, but the activity can gives
you an amazing buzz and confidence.

- When cooking a meal you may burn yourself on the hob, but the activity means 
cooking a heart-warming meal for your spouse. 

‘With respect to ourselves and our own life, we often see risks as choices.' (Source -
Carson & Bain 2008)

So how than can we find the right balance?

In order to create a more balanced risk assessment, we have to take time to
acknowledge and reflect on our 'survival mode' and its potential impact on how
risk is managed.

 

We have to find the middle ground between being overprotective and being
underprotective. I have for some years been working on a simple Risk
Continuum (see image below) which can help people reflect on their 'survival
mode', become more self-aware (AKA emotionally intelligent) and finding the
right risk balance.
 

Over the following weeks I will be building onto this simple continuum, which starts
fromhow our brains are wired, and how it links to organisational behaviour,
culture and leadership styles.

 

SOURCES:

* 'Why risk assessment misses the point' - http://www.jomc.co.uk/blog/why-risk-

assessment-misses-the-point/)

Carson & Bain (2008) Professional Risk and Working with People

RELEVANT BLOGS:

'Building a Learning Culture' - http://mythoughtcanvas.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2012-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

'7 Ways to ReWire Your Brain and Become a Better Leader -
http://seapointcenter.com/rewire-your-brain-for-leadership/

'What fear calls risk is actually opportunity' -
http://www.soulseeds.com/grapevine/2012/07/what-fear-calls-risk-is-actually-opportunity/

 

Question of the day ... on strength-based sourcing

When running projects it is incredibly tricky to identify the right people with the right strengths and experiences to contribute to the project's success. The difficulty comes from the fact that it is virtually impossible to keep on top of people's strengths and experiences. Even the person themselves would fail to write it all down.

What can be controlled is the promotion of the projects. So ... if organisations built a market place of projects and challenges to be resolved, would the right staff with the right strengths and experiences volunteer their knowledge?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

The 5 Monkeys Metaphor & Lessons in Personal Leadership

This morning I woke up thinking about the 5 Monkeys metaphor, the leadership style of Gandhi and Hitler and how the combination of both might just hold some very powerful leadership lessons. For those unfamiliar with the 5 Monkeys metaphor, follow this link: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=five%20monkeys

So where does Hitler's leadership style fit with the metaphor of the Five Monkeys? I am here introducing the 6th Monkey ...

At the bottom of the ladder there are 5 monkeys who have learned to depend on others for the provision of bananas and have learned to fear the consequences of the actions of others. The monkeys start from the expectation that the cage is inescapable and that the bananas need to be provided by a more powerful other who is to be feared and who sets the rules of engagement and what behaviours earn bananas. Each monkey who is brave enough to reach for the bananas is perceived as a threat to the 'status quo' by the other monkeys and pulled back into line through discouraging words and restraining actions, but also potentially - given the right circumstances - being attacked with weapons.

In steps a 6th monkey who supports the majority's believe that the cage is inescapable and that the unknown more powerful someone/something needs to be distrusted/feared. The 6th monkey offers themselves up as the 'rescuer' of the situation (please refer to the definition of rescuer as described by Stephen Karpman*). At first the 'rescuing' leader is welcomed. It gives the rescuer the status/popularity they crave and the followers are happy that someone other than themselves is willing to take accountability for all that is bad in the their experience of the world.

However when the rescuer struggles to rescue and starts losing control (as is inevitable as one person cannot solve all problems), the majority start to distrust the 6th monkey, however due to the power and status awarded to them by the majority when things were going well, the 6th monkey can now become the powerful someone to be feared and in turn is the one who sets the rules of engagement, with due punishment for those who are resistant, step out-of-line or those who are different. And so the cycle continues ...

So how would the 6th monkey act differently Gandhi-style (not to be confused with Gangnam-style)?

Gandhi trusted in the belief that even in the most appalling of situations someone can create their own freedom by accepting their situation and living a simple life (high resilience). His only focus in life was humility, being non-judgemental and continuously seeking self-improvement (personal leadership). 

In this case the 6th monkey looked at opportunities beyond the cage (innovation) and did not start from the believe that you need to rely on others to provide. The 6th monkey made self-determining choice, thought positive and committed to living self-sustainably.

By showing his simple successes, the 6th monkey led by example. When the other monkeys started to follow the example, the ladder, bananas provided and the powers previously feared became less of a focus, which in turn created a more trusting and peaceful environment to live in, where collaboration and sharing wins over power and status.

So in summary, embrace personal leadership by being more self-aware, trusting of yourself & others, and unleashing your creativity by thinking differently! ... and we might just be making our way to world peace (Gandhi-style)!

REFERENCES AND FURTHER RELATED SUBJECTS

Test your resilience (FREE Resilience Self-Assessment Questionnaire) - https://www.testyourrq.com/

Transactional Analysis - http://www.businessballs.com/transact.htm

* Karpman's Drama Triangle - http://coachingsupervisionacademy.com/thought-leadership/the-karpman-drama-triangle/

Transactional Analysis: Getting off the Drama Triangle - http://www.melmenzies.co.uk/blog/transactional_analysis_getting_off_the_drama_triangle_part_1

Learned Helplessness, Rats, and People Power - http://codecraft.co/2012/11/26/learned-helplessness-rats-and-people-power/

The truth about dishonesty - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc

The Power of Outrospection - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG46IwVfSu8

Thought of the day ... on entrepreneurialism

Large organisations discourage entrepreneurialism and deskill their workforce by creating specialists not generalists.

Thought of the day ... on innovation

If necessity is the mother of invention, why do so many organisations chuck money at it?
 
Innovate on a shoestring and you will surprise yourself with what you come up with! Mini examplary challenge - If you had no money for learning & development, how would you go about it?

Share with me what you come up with ...

Question of the day ... on Local Government

Should the Public Sector think and act more like a Cooperative, Charity or Social Enterprise?

I'd love to hear people's thoughts!

Thought of the day ... on finding people's full potential

Start from a place of distrust and you will forever be proven right! Start from a place of trust and you will see people's full potential of being trust-worthy!

Thought of the day ... on valuing people

Only when you are kind to yourself as a leader, can you be kind to and see value in others around you!

Thought of the day ... on high performance

Those who stop learning day-to-day, stop performing. The curve of continuous change is too steep not to direct your own learning. If you struggle to keep up-to-date, make time to COLLABORATE!

Thought of the day ... on Horizon Scanning

Take some lessons from weather forecasters ... Be the best horizon scanner in the world and you will make better informed decisions, be more proactive and will never be caught out (when it pours)!

Thought of the day ... building accountability

Sometimes personal accountability can only be achieved by a 'tough love' approach. This is not just true in personal relationships, but equally applies to the Public Sector in empowering community action.

Thought of the day ... on 'Knowledge is Power'

Knowledge is power! Power is loneliness!

... unlike Knowledge Sharing which is non-hierarchical and creates strong and resilient communities through passion!

Thought of the day ... on the importance of asking the right questions

In today’s climate, no one has the expertise as none of us have been here before, yet everyone has the answer for themselves if they ask themselves and others around them the right questions.

Thought of the day ... on the importance of self-awareness and humility

A leader who believes they need to be perfect only reacts to problems and focusses on weaknesses in others.

A leader who is humble and self-aware about both their strengths and weaknesses will seek out learning opportunities for self-development and will embrace the strengths of others around them.

Thought of the Day ... on being proactive

When all you commit to learn is what went wrong in the past, you will remain 'reactive' and 'risk averse'. Commit yourself to and make time for learning more about your future!!!

Thought of the day ... on building your reputation

See yourself as a 'business', be passionate about your strengths, use them to benefit those who are appreciative of your support and can help build your reputation! Build your own positive future!

Thought of the day ... on siloed decision-making

Siloed decision making is usually ill-informed decision-making. Like a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world, it can cause hurricanes in another part (the Butterfly Effect). Instead invite diverse perspectives!

Thought of the day ... Innovation Metaphor

In a land with too many rules and regulations people fear to act and creativity is paralysed! High dependency on a few decision-makers becomes the order of the day.

The importance of building on simple metaphors

Over the last couple of months I have heard more metaphors being used in the workplace. Maybe I have become more sensitive to these as I have revisited my NLP knowledge, or maybe because people are reaching out for simplicity of messages in a complex environment.

Some metaphors used are very insightful and can help identify where people are at, as metaphors are:

'a type of analogy and is closely related to other rhetorical figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance including allegory, hyperbole, and simile.' (Source - Wikipedia)

Some metaphors stop before resolution is reached with the given scenario in the hope that the listener applies their own reflection from the story. But what if the listener, for various reasons, misses out on the reflection? Can building on simple metaphors as an individual or group help work towards organisational solutions?

Example: http://clearwater-uk.com/MyBlog/2010/02/28/five-monkeys-a-banana-and-corporate-culture/ (so that's why we use black ink!)

Another metaphor to explore further is: 'Turkeys don't vote for Christmas'

Assumption – Turkeys will never vote for Christmas and they are and always will be the traditional meal at Christmas.

Appreciative Inquiry – So why don't Turkeys vote for Christmas? In the past there has never been anything in it for them.

So how can this be changed as Christmas comes round every year? What can you do to make Christmas more attractive to turkeys? Does it mean breaking with tradition and doing something different?

Asking genuine questions in relation to the metaphor provides a safe environment to move forward what are - in real life – extremely complex and potentially 'wicked' scenarios.
 
I hope that in the process of exploring this metaphor I have not put people off their Christmas dinners! ;)

Letting go of your best people to support local economic growth

As it stands Local Authorities, by being the sole provider of a service in most cases and by their very size and systems, have installed dependency and ‘learned helplessness’ into the people they serve. In many cases, this high dependency has meant that Councils are looked at to address many of the communities’ needs, putting more pressure on the funds available. As a result, they attract litigation when the service provided does not address the needs identified. 
 
In times of luxury, the impact of the above was never felt and therefore never drawn into question. The double-dip recession, as well as the population’s demographic, has highlighted a need for a drastic change. The question is however why and how to move Councils to a more sustainable future.

WHY?
In order to stimulate local economic growth, Local Authorities have to let go of their best people, the people who have the knowledge and confidence to innovate and set up local businesses, social enterprises, charities or go self-employed/freelance. This would not only create more choice to address the needs of the local communities (moving away from one-size-fits-all solutions), but also better quality services – not through competition, but through closer community collaboration and co-creation.

HOW? And why is it important?
Redundancies are not the best option going forward. The impact could have a long-term negative effect on the local economy.

Hard-nosed selection processes used as part of the redundancy process often mean people leave with ‘a bad taste in their mouth’. Councils have to remember that the people that leave their organisation are the ‘providers of tomorrow’s services’ for the benefit of local citizens. The last things Councils want to invite is negative relationships with the people they will rely upon going forward. Nor do actions like redundancies support a positive ‘brand’ identity for the Council.

So how do Council’s identify and let their best people leave? Redundancy is not the only option. The best outcome for the community is to ensure positive relationships are upheld where possible. This requires a drastic behavioural change.

In order to ensure the best possible resilience levels for all involved is to talk openly about the changes ahead from the earliest opportunity, even when certain aspects may still be uncertain. Also important is to take more of a talent management and strength/career-coaching approach to your one-to-one’s with your staff team. Questions like ‘What are your ambitions for the future?’ and ‘Do you want to re-skill to support the Council of the future?’ are invaluable.

This approach does not necessarily have to come with a pot of money. A career-coaching approach may help identify cost-effective learning solutions such as shadowing or mentoring and help install more self-directed and self-funded learning where deemed necessary.

IF NOT ...?
What if Councils do not let go of their best people? This would leave the economy and communities impoverished of skills, knowledge and experience which are vital ingredients to building a better future.

There may be a further challenge to overcome if Councils decide to hold onto some of their specialists/experts. Holding onto specialists/experts can lead to distrust of external providers who have less knowledge and experience than the in-house specialist/expert. As a result, it is likely that the specialist/expert instigates in-house growth of workforce to deliver the service themselves. This would soon see the Council - not the economy - grow to its former size.

SO WHO DO COUNCILS NEED TO HOLD ONTO?
Councils need to start seeing themselves as the local ‘Think Tank’ and facilitators of continuous positive change, choice and quality. As such, the skills which may benefit Councils who are moving to a Commissioning role need to hold onto Strategic Generalists, Knowledge Analysts and Futurists who enjoy the challenge of uncertainty and local (and global) impact analysis. Specialists and experts in their field can be brought in - on a freelance basis - as and when a community need needs a larger contractual solution with a service provider.

Further blog - Who to Hire? http://thebuildnetwork.com/leadership/management/hire-generalists/

In one of my next blogs I will explore the Commissioning Role for Councils using the 70/20/10 model.

Non-Compliance - problem or gift

Non-compliance can be viewed as a ‘problem’ resulting in solutions which are hoping to resolve that ‘problem’. From a more constructive point of view, non-compliance can be seen as a gift of ‘valuable feedback’ to help us achieve the best possible outcome for both the customer and ourselves.


‘Non-compliance’ in an organisation can be compared with a customer not buying a product they don’t like, leaving a meal in a restaurant that doesn’t meet their expectations or an employee not completing a mandatory learning package.


The problem is not always the person who doesn’t ‘comply’, it is more likely that the offering does not match the needs of/adds value to the person or the person does not fully understand the benefits to themselves and the organisation. Deciding to see ‘non-compliance’ as valuable feedback empowers suppliers of 'compliance' products and services to actively seek customers’ qualitative feedback and collaborate on how to make continuous improvements to a product or service for the benefit of all customer, leading in turn to better ‘compliance' (more accurately known as buy-in/ownership/personal responsibility). 


Using the above comparative examples, would it help to ‘tell’ or ‘train’ a customer to eat a meal in a restaurant that doesn’t meet their needs/expectations? Or would it help to actively seek their feedback, improve the meal based on the feedback received, give the customer a voucher to eat at the restaurant again at a future date and regain their trust (and your reputation)?


Even if a product or service is mandatory, which organisations often feel they have to consider, there has to be more of a commitment to explain the benefits and positively influence accountability in others, rather than using the ‘stick’ or 'reward' approach. 

Compliance as a possible sign of high stress & anxiety

Reflective questions:

1. So why do some employees/customers always comply with whatever is given to them, even when it doesn’t meet their own or their customers’ needs/expectations?
2. Why do people feel their feedback will not make a difference?
3. Why do some people eat the meal that doesn’t meet their expectations?
4. Why do people blindly believe everything a GP tells them?
5. Why do people believe changes or improvement to legislation are outside of their control?
6. Why do people see the law as a compliance target rather than a minimum standard to exceed? (see related blog - Legislation - Compliance Target or Minimum Standard)

Possible answers (not an exhaustive list):

1. Don’t want to ‘rock the boat’
2. Don’t want to upset the other person
3. Avoid embarrassment
4. Avoid conflict
5. Lacks confidence/assertiveness
6. Feels intimidated by the (sometimes perceived) status/power of the other person
7. Learned helplessness
8. Don’t know how to challenge
9. Don’t know how to say no
10. Worried about losing their job
11. Fear of blame
12. Fear of being seen as a 'trouble-maker' (Related blog - Troublemaker or Changemaker)

Non-compliance is not a problem. It should raise curiosity and be seen as an opportunity for getting more feedback to improve the quality of compliance products, service or communication. On the contrary however, there should be much more concern for the cultural impact of ‘blind compliance’.

Related TED video talking about Willing Blindness, a very human condition and the activity of whistle-blowing:

Margaret Heffernan: The dangers of "willful blindness" #TED

Understanding conflict in the workplace

When dealing with conflict, it is important to understand the reasons why relationships get stuck into ‘playing games’ from a Neurlogical and Psychological perspective. It is all to do with our Fight, Flight and Freeze (survival) responses, as in essence we are primitive beings living in a sophisticated society. In our pre-historic environments, treats came in the form of lions and wolves etc. which triggered our survival responses. Today it is often these neurologically-driven responses have that makes us, as human beings, distrust others’ actions and take them to heart.

As we all are driven by our neurological survival responses, it has a major impact on how we communicate and form relationships. Stephen Karpman suggested that, due to the way our brain functions, every person plays a number of roles. Linking my perspective with that of Stephen Karpman, it appears that the fight response in us brings out a ‘persecutor’. In the Culture Continuum model this is presented on the left-hand side as the ‘under-protective parent’/judgemental role. The flight response appears to bring out, what Karpman refers to as the ‘rescuer’. On the Culture Continuum this is represented as the ‘over-protective parent’/putting others first role. The freeze response brings out a ‘victim’, represented as the ‘dependent’/learned helplessness role in the Culture Continuum.

In relationships with others, these roles ‘feed’ each other into a vicious circle of distrust and paranoia, always leading to LOSE-LOSE situations. Example – a teenager lacks confidence to do something (victim), a parent may step in and do it for them (rescuer). The parent may feel overwhelmed and resentful (LOSE) and the teenager never learns and gains confidence (LOSE).

Some more details on Karpman’s Drama Triangle and examples of interactions:
http://coachingsupervisionacademy.com/thought-leadership/the-karpman-drama-triangle/

How to move to WIN-WIN communication and relationships by being more aware of our brain neurological responses:

• The key – make time to REFLECT on your own neurological survival responses. In any given situation, are you in Fight (judgement), Flight (overprotective) or Freeze (dependent) mode?

• Treat others as adults and trust them to make their own decisions and cope with the challenges they face, including mistakes

• When you feel your FIGHT responses kicking in (e.g. being defensive, judging the actions/behaviours of others, feeling frustrated, anger etc), step back, reflect and when ready acknowledge how the other person is feeling and responding (according to their survival response), separate the behaviour from the person and constructively challenge without judgement. Be a constructive, but critical friend and offer some 'tough love' where needed.

• When you feel your FLIGHT responses kicking in (e.g. feeling sorry/pity for others, indulging others in their poor judgements, wanting to step in to take over from others etc), step back, reflect and when ready acknowledge how the other person is feeling and responding (according to their survival response), ask coaching-style questions that help you understand them better and empower the other person to find their own solutions.

• When you feel your FREEZE responses kicking in (e.g. not knowing where to turn, requesting others to step in, pushing others away and help/problem-solve etc), step back, reflect and when ready take control and create a plan of action. PLEASE NOTE - This does not mean you have to be eternally independent. Instead focuss on inter-dependency. It is ok to ask others for their views as long as there is no expectation for being ‘rescued’ and you recognise you are equal in presenting your views. This sets the basis for mutual respect and collaboration with others.

It is important to acknowledge that we are driven by our neurological pathways and that in stressful situations it takes extra effort to challenge yourself into making time to reflect on how you communicate with and respond to others. The reassuring bit is that we are all wired in the same way and all fall into these ‘survival’ patterns.

I personally find it helpful to use Karpman’s Drama Triangle and reflect on the role I play in any interaction to ensure my actions and communications don’t ‘feed the game’.

Reflection on the Benefits and Weaknesses of Formal and Informal Learning

Following my last blog post I had some further thoughts about the benefits and weaknesses of formal and informal learning. Please feel free to add your thoughts as I am sure these lists are complete.

Qualification/Certification Routes

• Specialist/Expert Thinking = Rewarded
• Reward = Certificate which is recognised across organisations and sometimes comes with a pay rise or career progression

Weaknesses:

- Expensive and time consuming

- Topic-specific (staff cannot specialise in everything!)

- Is there such a thing as a Specialist or Expert?

- May not change a person’s behaviour

- Leaves staff wanting more formal courses

- Usually provided by external organisations

- May stop other less qualified staff from learning and acting

- Often directive in its approach

- Suggest ‘right & wrong’ thinking

- Mostly based on hypothetical scenarios

- Difficult to measure impact on the business

- Based on ‘one size fits all’ thinking

- Paper certificate offers false re-assurance of passion for the subject, skills and/or knowledge

- Encourages rigorous risk practices and risk averse thinking (see Blog pages)

Benefits:

- Structured

- Easy to measure quantitatively

- Useful when the skill does not exist in-house

- Statutory requirement for some service areas

- Makes partnership working easy

Informal Learning

• Generic/Flexible/Transferable Thinking = Not Rewarded formally
• Celebrates transferable skills and passion-driven

Weaknesses:

- Difficult to measure quantitatively

- Less structured

- Does not cover all skills, particularly technical skills

- Cannot replace statutory required qualification routes, such as Social Work, Teaching etc.

Benefits:

- Often free or low cost – offer more for less (Personalised Pick & Mix Approach)

- Encourages flexible and innovative working practices

- Encourages staff to stay curious and passionate

- Encourages reflective and critical thinking

- Encourages humility and willingness to learn from others

- Encourages the sharing of information and interdependency

- Learning is motivated by current service-specific dilemmas and challenges and is relevant in the moment

- Recognised as a more powerful way to learn

- Work is learning and learning is work

- Celebrating the skills and knowledge in-house through coaching and mentoring

- Encourages personal accountability over learning needs

- Is often autonomous or social

RELATED BLOGS:

What you (think you) know can hurt you - http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthaettus/2012/12/12/9-ways-you-should-be-using-twitter/?utm_campaign=forbestwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social