How to build a better world one (risk) decision at a time?

With the pressures created by the current economy it is not unusual to find people are becoming more concerned about safety and seeking ways to return to stability. When this applies to individuals, this behaviour closely matches 'survival' behaviour. Where it applies to collectives -be that communities, organisations, nations etc - we start observing behaviours such as group-think, territorialism, nimby-ism, terrorism and more worryingly, the search for stronger leaders who are believed for their promise to return the collective to 'safety' and 'stability'.
 
Safety and stability are myths, which even strong leadership cannot help bring to life. Why? Because the 'laws of nature' dictate that risk is the norm and continuous change (AKA evolution) is positive. These are the simple, but for a lot of people, counter-intuitive principles which will help rebalance decisions for better (more peaceful) outcomes.
 
All this is based on a false belief that risk is the polar opposite to safety, and that only safety can avoid blame (see 'False' Risk Continuum below). Nothing could be further from the truth! Evidence shows that (command-and-) control behaviours actually attract more extreme 'survival' behaviour in others - be that flight or flight - leaving the collective more open to extreme behaviours and scenarios as described above. 

 

 

In order to win, we need to complete the continuum with the polar opposite to control. So here is what the full risk continuum looks like: 

 

The polar opposite of control is neglect. Without adding the consideration of neglect to our decision-making processes, risk will continue to be seen as needing to be avoided instead of embraced as that what helps us survive, grow and evolve. 

 

The trick is not to control but to find balance, build resilience to change, letting go of control and learning with the flow as set by the 'laws of nature'!

 

 

 



What is the ideal workforce make-up for the Public Sector?

Every Public Sector organisation across the world is facing the same challenges caused by the current tough economic climate, which means that - as part of wider organisational considerations such as property assets and reducing duplication - workforce make-up is crucial in helping Public Sector organisations to become adaptable/agile and survive economic pressures.

 

Public Sector organisations need to become more aware of the types of employees they employ, including those who can best support the adaptability and transformation needs the organisation needs to consider in becoming more efficient and leaner, and those who are able to help the organisation manage the peaks and troughs of demand, and all this without negatively impacting on service delivery and local economic growth. 

 

There is a trend which has been set by some Public Sector bodies in London in working with Private Sector giants for both back office and community facing service delivery. These giants however face the same challenges as any Public Sector body in managing peaks and troughs. And they have an extra challenge, and that is 'winning business' of other Public Sector bodies in order to achieve local efficiencies through collaboration and partnership working. The question is however: 'Are Private Sector giants best-placed or even interested in supporting local collaborations and partnerships? Plus are they themselves agile and flexible enough to negotiate the same tough economy as faced by the Public Sector?'

 

The answer to sustainability and continuity of high-quality service delivery may be closer to home than first thought, namely the (often hidden) strengths of the Public Sector workforce. Public Sector workforces are often made up of people who live locally, who have worked in the Public Sector for some time and who are willing to be contributors and creators of a stronger local future for all. A great source of local knowledge and strengths!

 

The key is taking time to analyse the perfect workforce make-up for your organisation!

 

There are three types of employee status I would like to highlight in this blog:

• The 'permanent' workforce - Many organisations perceive this type of workforce to be ideal as they undoubtedly work hard and have extensive internal knowledge. They are also willing to work to organisational rules, policies and procedures. In reality this type of employee will only reluctantly offer challenge to something which could be improved upon out as they worry they might lose their job and are mostly driven by job security, stability, money and/or status. These drivers often mean the permanent workforce are less resilient to organisational change/transformation and some may even (wittingly or unwittingly) sabotage transformation initiatives due to lack of objectivity.
  
  
  It is noticeable that organisations who employ high numbers of permanent staff often have to resort to expensive and highly disruptive staff restructures in order to continuously improve and evolve. Moving staff around based on strengths rather than job descriptions is difficult as traditional contracts and consultation policies make it time consuming to change hierarchical management structures. The result is often the creation of more bureaucracy and higher complexity of decision-making processes, slowing down and at times paralysing transformation initiatives and service delivery.
 
• The 'free agent' workforce - This type of workforce has two subcategories. The internal free agent aka the intrapreneur, or the external free(lance) agents aka the entrepreneur. Both are highly committed to creating efficiencies and sustainability by breaking hierarchical silo mentalities. They are self-driven and on the whole take responsibility for their own learning and performance. They are less driven by job security, stability and status, and are not concerned about working themselves out of a job as they enjoy variety and more likely to work from the principle of empowerment of others (the 'teach a person to fish, ...' principle) which means they can step away. The intrapreneurs are often perceived as 'disruptive' by traditional managers as they challenge the status quo and act outside of their job descriptions.
  
  
  In case of the external freelancer, it has been noted that organisations often invite back employees who have worked for them in the past. This may be perceived as expensive by permanent employees, however this is a myth. Freelance staff, while they may be more expensive in relation to pay, actually save organisations a lot of time and money by being a highly flexible workforce, which mitigates the need for costly and highly disruptive restructure programmes. Freelancers bring an objectivity to transformation programmes which require tough decisions which are likely affect the organisational structure, its corporate centre controls and its workforce, and as such help drive the transformation forward. Organisations are better able to attract and where needed switch off knowledge and skills based on fluctuating demand. 

Given the economic pressures and the need to encourage more local economic growth I would argue that the ideal workforce for any Public Sector organisation who seriously needs to consider 'downsizing' is to identify and work with its internal Free Agents, but also with local external Free(lance) Agents. Internally Free Agents make for a highly flexible and resilient workforce and using local Free(lance) Agents utilises local strengths and knowledge, engages citizens into local action for a better future and supports the local economy.

 

So what is your organisation's ideal workforce make-up for surviving tough economic times?

Staying afloat - helping organisations survive financial difficulties

Is your organisation experiencing financial challenges? Not unusual in this day and age as financial pressures have affected us all in one way or another. Metaphors can really help you to prioritise your activities and outcomes and how to communicate to your employees. It may help you to think about a ship at risk of sinking. What is the first thing you do?

There are three behavioural options: 'denial', 'panic' or 'analyse, plan, act and review'.

Denial will only mean that those in positions of power and others who depend on them will be caught out. Denial stops communication about what is likely to happen, stops the seeking of highly-needed support and the resulting non-action is most likely to mean the ship will sink with many ill-prepared casualties.

Panic causes more panic. It is infectious and soon ends in chaos. Panic can translate in not knowing where to start, lead to knee jerk and therefore ill-informed decision-making. Reactivity has a negative effect on those who rely on the direction of those in positions of power. The likely result - a sinking ship and ill-prepared casualties (unless you are lucky to be surrounded by others who are more resilient).

The only winning formula is to 'analyse, plan, act and review' in other words, take a step back, get 'all hands on deck' to analyse the damage and trust everyone's commitment to do everything in their power to prevent the worst case scenario. Asking everyone to support the outcomes will also mean they will be more resilient and ready for any further changes (even if it means that the sinking of the ship could not be prevented).

If you find that your workforce are not acting in the way you would expect in an organisation dealing with uncertainty, it is likely that clear, honest and transparent communication is needed or that the communication is not being cascaded by those who lack the resilience needed to cope and lead others in these ever-changing times.

Idea of the Day ... on Changing Behaviour through Design

In Belgium and the Netherlands they have put large butterfly nets along the cycle paths to encourage people to throw their litter in the right place rather than littering just anywhere. This design is based on a technique called 'Nudge' which uses people's nature/instinctive behaviours as the starting point of any design.

 
Nudge Theory too is used to design care homes for people with Dementia, in highways design and putting low-cost gym equipment in parks.

How else could we use 'nudge' for the benefit of the wider community?

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/

 

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 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 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!!!