Neil Baker Consulting and Coaching
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog

Secrets to successful healthcare innovation too often stay hidden

5/29/2017

 
Video (5 min. 36 sec.)
Picture
References
  1. Kahneman, Daniel Thinking Fast and Slow Farrar, Straus, and Giroux 2012.
  2. Baker, Neil J. et al Hidden in Plain View: Barriers to Quality Improvement Physician Leadership Journal (2) Mar-Apr 2016, 54- 57
  3. Lencioni, Patrick The Advantage Jossey-Bass 2012

Download pdf
(text of video)

Tool for Ongoing Review Meetings for Improvement Initiatives
Available for subscribers only. Subscribe for free monthly resources and obtain a link to the tool by clicking on the subscribe button below . You may unsubscribe at any time. ​
Subscribe for free
Text of video (4 - 6 min. reading time)
​In this article you will learn that secrets to successful healthcare innovation too often stay hidden, why this happens, and what is needed to uncover them. 

Here are two brief stories of improvement initiatives told at conferences in which critical success factors emerged only when I later talked individually with the presenters. 

Read More

Three Steps to Transform Your Approach to Relational Problems

9/19/2016

 
Picture
When facing difficult relational problems at work, it is natural and nearly automatic for us all to want to diagnose what is wrong and come up with THE right solution as soon as possible.

It is very common to leap quickly to strong but faulty conclusions. One example is attributing relational problems to personality issues or lack of skills. Actually, situational issues are far more often the primary cause of difficult behavior. 

Situational complexity and stress are inherent in organizational life. These factors easily provoke differing viewpoints and experiences among the people involved. Relational problems arise most frequently when these differences have not been adequately heard and understood. Pushing for a solution prior to such understanding runs a substantial risk of negative reactions and push back. 

Resisting the rush to diagnoses and solutions and taking the time for “dialogue and discovery” usually leads to much more success. By engaging in dialogue, a process of hearing and understanding different viewpoints, new perceptions and solutions emerge surprisingly often. 

While there are no recipes or scripts, the following three steps provide guidance. 

1. Reflect—recognize and manage leaps to conclusions in yourself
  • Set aside certainty that there is ONE correct viewpoint (no matter how certain you are). Prepare to state your view with the aim of being understood, not “getting” agreement. 

2. Dialogue—first, set aside finding solutions in order to build mutual understanding
  • State your intention to first understand each other even if there is disagreement. Be vigorous in assuring accurate learning about different viewpoints by avoiding debates and repeatedly summarizing and checking for understanding.    

3. Decide—seek agreement to meet again (expect multiple conversations for resolution)
  • Take small steps over multiple conversations to enable the best chances for a mutual solution. It also helps to have clarity about how a decision will be made if and when that becomes necessary (e.g. by consensus vs. by a person with the authority to decide).

The first step can be the most difficult. When the stakes feel high, at times we all have unproductive habits of reaction. These take practice to change and, sometimes, coaching. 

The productive habit we need to continuously strengthen is counter-intuitive: we need to slow down the rush to solutions and take one small step at a time through dialogue and discovery. This enables the chances for the best success for both task and relational goals.  
 
Additional resources
Subscribe for free monthly articles and obtain links to articles and tools for subscribers only including the Resource Guide for In-the-Moment Leadership Strategies and the reference list Books That Inspire A “Dialogue and Discovery” Mindset. Click below. 

Subscribe for Free
Download pdf

How can you make sense of 180,000+ leadership books?

8/9/2016

 
Picture
Not only are there hundreds of thousands of books on leadership and associated topics but they offer a bewildering variety of frameworks, models, and terminologies. 

On the one hand, this is a very good thing. Having served as a leader for many years, I have been deeply appreciative of many great approaches. 

But, as a leader, I usually faced a huge number of issues every day. It was hard to recall more than a few strategies in the moment. 

So, all through my career I have sought one short list of strategies for easy reference that would be powerful in problem-solving across many types of situations.  

Could it be possible to create such a list? Find out more in the Resource Guide for In-the-Moment Leadership Strategies available for subscribers only. Click on the button below to subscribe for free monthly articles and obtain a link to the Guide as well as other resources. 

Subscribe for free monthly articles and links to resources for subscribers only
You may unsubscribe at any time.​
Subscribe and obtain Resource Guide

A Key Barrier to Making Our Leadership Transformational

6/7/2016

 
Picture
An executive in a recent workshop I led pulled me aside to privately say:

“I know I need to reflect on the way I am thinking, feeling, and acting to be a better leader but I don’t know how.”

I was taken aback by his honesty. This was clearly hard for him to reveal. He chose not to ask in front of the group.

Reflection seems so straightforward. 
But is it?

What 420 leaders say about reflection…
It turns out the executive who pulled me aside is not alone. Of 420 healthcare leaders I surveyed at talks on leadership, almost all indicated they face one or more barriers to reflection. Two of the most common, each checked by nearly half of the leaders, were “uncertainty about how to do it well” and “lack of time.” 

The majority of written comments were about struggles with prioritizing and taking the time for reflection. Some of this was attributed to being “caught up” in issues such as “lack of trust in the organization” or “lack of political capital to get anything done.” One leader attributed his difficulty reflecting to “weakness.” Another wrote that it is “hard to change habits.” 

What brain science says about reflection…
At the heart of things, creating a reflective practice is creating a new habit. We all know changing habits like diet and exercise is hard. But I think reflection is much harder. In reflecting, we work to shift from being “caught up” in our thoughts and feelings to looking at them to expand our understanding of situations and open to more creative and effective options. 

Brain science has indicated that experiential information we take in is coupled to automatic, habitual ways of explaining events. Our brains are hard-wired for us to leap to conclusions from limited data in nanoseconds. It takes work to “decouple” ourselves from such automatic processes. But, even brief reflection such as taking 15 minutes to write down lessons learned from experience can yield more objective understanding of events and better options. (1 – 2) 

Hard-wired to avoid transformation 
Transformation involves getting to new perspectives. Because our brain hard-wiring can easily trap us into biased conclusions, we benefit from developing a regular practice of questioning our own thoughts. This is not easy for the ego. It is humbling. The tendency is to jump quickly to feeling “right” rather than leaving ourselves open to uncertainty. Think about how easy, common, and seductive it is to be sure other people are “the problem” rather than looking at our own contribution to problems. 

Missing the true level of our accomplishments
Another challenge is that our automatic responses can make it surprisingly easy to miss the true level of success we have had. Seeing our successes accurately is crucial to changing habits. 

For example, in the middle of a longer conversation, almost as an aside, a leader mentioned she had resolved a conflict with a team. I said “Wait! At the start of this conflict, what would you have estimated for the chances of achieving this level of success?” She replied “No more than a 20% chance.” Suddenly, this event became one worth reflecting on. How did she pull this off?

Three steps forward you can take right now
I guarantee you have already had multiple experiences of “decoupling” yourself from automatic thinking. The challenge is to turn such experience into an intentional and systematic practice. There is no way around carving out time. But, you can start small. For example, carve out one half-hour a week to reflect on a past or current situation.

Next, start trying out a consistent set of questions for guidance. Be willing to change them over time to find out what works for you. Here is a quick set to work from: What happened?; What were my thoughts, feelings, and actions?; What did I do that was helpful and unhelpful?; Where did I leap to conclusions?; How did I contribute to the problems?; What options might I consider?; What will I try next?; What do I hope to accomplish?

Finally, be sure to keep the goals for actions small to build confidence. For that leader who resolved the team conflict, her first step was to simply listen to the team and explore their concerns. That was transformational for her instead of needing a solution in one meeting. 

Consider engaging an extra set of neurons
The journey of developing a reflective practice also benefits from episodes of coaching and consultation. In my own work with clients, I think of myself as offering “an extra set of neurons” to increase power in countering hard-wired responses and generating creativity. In the wild complexity of organizational life, two brains can sometimes be better than one. 

Obtain tools for situational reflection and action planning 
by subscribing now for free monthly articles. You may unsubscribe at any time. 
Click to subscribe and get link to tool
​References
  1. Di Stefano, Giada et al Learning by Thinking: How Reflection Aids Performance, Harvard Business School Working Paper 14-093, March 25, 2014
  2. Siegel, Daniel J. Mindfulness training and neural integration: differentiation of distinct streams of awareness and the cultivation of well-being, SCAN 2, 2007

​Download pdf

Lost in the Swamp?--Three ways to find your True North.

4/6/2015

 
Picture
At one of my recent leadership workshops, a participant said:

“When I came here I felt my problems were unsolvable. Now, I see solutions to try.”

What happened is that she had gotten lost in The Swamp of everyday complexity, volatility, uncertainty, unexpected crises, and a million items on her to-do list.

In organizations, this can happen to anyone at any time. The stress of The Swamp tends to narrow and constrict our thinking. Problems can feel impossible. Or, the solutions we do come up with seem driven by pressures of the moment and don’t feel quite right.  

It is common for clients to come to me at such times feeling like they lack sufficient knowledge and skills.
I find clients almost always know a good deal about what to do but this knowledge is obscured within the entangled vines and mud of the swamplands.  The first step is to let go of the push for solutions and look for their own personal “True North” for guidance. 

For all of us, finding True North involves clarifying ways of doing things (our principles and values) that feel most important to us--what we care most about--in a certain situation. Once we find this True North, creative solutions start to flow.  

Below are three methods to get back in touch with True North. The methods work best when done with a colleague or coach who is not caught up in the situation.


1. Nine Whys  (1)

Ask "Why is that important to you?" around five to nine times consecutively. 

Example (client story)
A manager of a staff working on financial reports for outside clients came to me very frustrated. His staff kept missing due dates. He felt trapped into being a micro-manager or giving corrective actions. But neither action seemed right to him.


When first asked why due dates were so important, he said “so the reports get done on time.” To the second “why,” he said “to make the clients happy.”  At about the ninth "why," he found what he cared about most—enabling sufficient time to discuss reports to assure learning and development for staff and clients. Instead of feeling trapped, he was inspired to talk with his staff about this vision and ways to make it happen--including due dates.  


2. Put yourself in their shoes and ask “How would I want to be treated?” 

This method is particularly useful for feedback and performance management situations.

Example (client story)
An executive felt pressured by her senior leaders to fire one of her managers who was making everyone feel very frustrated. Her impulse was to just get rid of him but she did not feel quite right about it.

By asking how she would want to be treated if she were the manager, she was able to quickly identify what she cared most about--what a value-driven performance management process would look like. She could then easily see that the manager had not received explicit feedback and there had been no plan or timeline for making changes.

She felt strongly she needed to develop a rigorous feedback process with a timeline before considering termination. Also, she felt confident presenting this plan to her senior leaders.

3. From complaints to commitments
(2)
Being lost in The Swamp commonly gets us into complaining about people. It is hard to feel good about actions coming out of that state. But, behind complaints is a lot of passion that means we are highly committed to something. The task is to find that underlying, positive commitment.  

Example (client story)
An executive was quite angry that her boss made a decision which cut money from her budget. He had informed her via email.  The only options she could see were to quit, tell him off, or just push down her feelings and accept the situation. None of these options felt very good to her.

By reframing her reactions into positive commitments, she could see how much she cared about involving people for input prior to making decisions whenever possible and talking in person. She also rediscovered her strong commitment to not assuming bad intentions--e.g. attributing to her boss the intention to be disrespectful--just because she felt badly. This helped to calm her anger. 


Grounded in these principles, she felt able to enter into a nonjudgmental, mutual conversation rather than just venting anger. She planned to talk to her boss to find out how he came to the decision. If this went well, she would ask if he was willing to get her input in the future about decisions which impacted her directly.

Our True North never really goes away.

Our True North is always there. It just gets repeatedly obscured by day-to-day work pressures.  By consistent practice, we can gradually improve our ability to rediscover the True North which helps us create strategies to navigate the inevitable swamplands of organizational life.


References
(1)   From Keith McCandless and Henri Lipmanowicz Liberating Structures 2014
(2)   From Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey in How We Talk Can Change the Way We Work 2002


Download pdf

Are flaws in decision-making processes causing conflict and poor alignment?--a quick diagnostic

2/26/2015

 
Picture
Barriers to progress like lack of alignment or conflict that are difficult to resolve are fairly common. One seemingly quite logical interpretation is that the primary cause of such barriers is the way people are communicating.

But, problematic communication could be secondary to--a result of--flaws in decision-making processes. Such flaws may not be recognized as an important source of relational problems. When people then dive into discussions, they are at risk for having unexpressed concerns, differing views, and assumptions about how decisions will be made.

As a result, it is more difficult to sustain dialogue—a process of eliciting and assuring mutual understanding of differing ideas, opinions, and perceptions. Instead, due to the prevailing uncertainties, people are more likely to fall into debates, arm-twisting, coaxing, and pressuring which disrupt efforts to achieve alignment.  

Identifying flaws in decision making and doing something about them can help significantly to shift a murky, entangled debate into a clear, effective process of dialogue.

Common decision-making errors include lack of clarity about: who has the authority to make the call; the type of decision being used; whether there will be input before and after decisions are made in order to address concerns; or if those impacted will be involved in the design of the implementation plan.

A quick diagnostic for flaws in decision making process (to support high quality dialogue):
  • In this situation, is it clear who (person or group) has the authority to make the decision?
  • Has that person or group identified the type of decision making to be used? (see brief descriptions below)
  • Is there a clear timeline for the decision?
  • Do people who are impacted and those who can contribute expertise have opportunities to give input? Have they been involved in creating a mutual definition of the problem?
  • Has there been high quality dialogue prior to the decision with consideration of different options and the benefits and risks of each?
  • Will there be opportunity to express reactions and address concerns about a decision after it is made?
  • Will people be involved in designing the implementation plan for the decision?
  • Will the person or group who made the decision engage in regular review of the quality, clarity, and effectiveness of decision making processes?

Types of decision making: (1)
The following two decision types mesh best with the objective of promoting high quality dialogue.
  • In consultative decisions, a leader with the authority to do so makes the call after obtaining input through dialogue from those who will be impacted and those who have key knowledge and expertise.
  • In consensus, a group of people make the call together. Consensus does not mean that the decision is everyone’s first choice but that everyone can live with the decision and commit fully to its success.
Additional decision types:
  • In authoritative decision making, a leader with authority makes the decision without input. Dialogue about the decision after it is made is crucial to promote alignment and participation in implementation.
  • When decisions are delegated, a leader with authority gives that authority to another leader or team who then determines the decision type and process to be used. 

Maintaining high quality dialogue while also maintaining clarity and quality of decision making processes is an important and nuanced balancing act. It takes art, skill, and ongoing, deliberate practice by individual leaders and by teams.

Additional brief articles on decision making
  • When Decisions Cause Distress--a path of courage and compassion
  • We have a consensus!?
Reference

(1) Special thanks to Robert Crosby. See his book Walking the Empowerment Tightrope 1992.


Download pdf

Don't wait. Apply practices for dialogue in every conversation.

2/9/2015

 
Picture
Eliciting and managing different perspectives is very important.

In complex systems, no one person or group has sufficient information and perspective to accurately define problems or to design the most creative and effective solutions.

One right answer rarely exists. Different perspectives must be brought together through high quality communication.

Also, the best results arise when people decide to do work out of desire and interest, or intrinsic motivation, as opposed to compliance. Intrinsic motivation arises not through being convinced but through being able to talk about the work and its rationale and contribute to solutions.

But, such open and widely distributed talk about different viewpoints and concerns is very hard to do.

The complexity, pressures, and high stakes of daily life in organizations result in a strong drive to quickly come up with answers to problems. This can shut off adequate communication and cause misdirection, errors, conflict, and passive compliance all of which can hurt results.  

Dialogue is a method to elicit different perspectives and manage them skillfully.

Definition of dialogue
Open, honest conversation which elicits commonalities and differences and manages them skillfully to:
  • discover what is important to each participant;
  • find mutual definitions of problems, mutual goals, creative solutions, and shared commitment for action;
  • maintain feedback about what is working and not working in order to sustain progress.

Key practices for dialogue:*
  • Explicitly keep separate the times for dialogue and for decision making.
  • Make explicit the intentions of dialogue (see above).
  • Elicit different viewpoints and explore them. Avoid debates.
  • Suspend certainty that there is one right perspective or solution.
  • Explore the underlying data and observations on which views are based.
  • Assure wide, balanced participation.
  • Avoid judgments and blame. Assume mutual contributions to problems.
  • Use cycles of active listening, active telling, and checking understanding.*

You can start to use these practices right now. Every conversation is an opportunity to advance mutual understanding and problem solving. The most important enabling factor for dialogue is the first practice—setting aside, on a temporary basis, the push to get to solutions in order to really listen to people.

Example 1: In complex systems, slowing down simply to ask questions is likely to progressively lead to more accurate definitions of problems, better solutions, and higher motivation. It is helpful to think of one dialogue about one issue as potentially spreading out over multiple interactions including even a 5 minute hallway conversation.

In your next hallway conversation or in a meeting with an individual or team, consider these questions:
  • How are things going? What is working and not working?
  • What do you care most about at work? What makes you most enthusiastic?
  • How does this [e.g. change, project, problem] impact what you care most about?
  • What are your biggest concerns right now?
  • Do you have ideas about how we can mitigate those concerns?

Example 2: If you are in the middle of a conflict, ask if others could set aside the attempt to resolve it just to explore what each person is observing and experiencing. Being able to elicit and explore disagreements rather than debate them not infrequently leads to a whole new understanding of an issue entirely different from what was originally expected.

Make every conversation count toward involving people in identifying and solving problems that they care about.

*To obtain the tool and reference list In-the-Moment Reminders for Dialogue available to subscribers only, subscribe for free monthly articles and blogs by clicking on Subscribe.

On being unconditionally constructive

2/9/2015

 
Picture
(Based on work from The Harvard Negotiation Project, especially the book by Roger Fisher and Scott Brown: Getting Together: Building Relationships as we Negotiate Penguin Books 1988)

Difficult interactions and conflict occur frequently in organizational life. 

One common trap in such situations is to assume that if we act rationally, fairly, without blame, and with calm emotions, then others will or should automatically follow our lead with their behavior. 

But, the stress of interpersonal difficulties causes everyone, at times, to fall into unproductive relational patterns.This can happen even when people have the best of intentions and skills. Starting with expectations that everyone will always act according to their best values puts us at substantial risk for disappointment or anger and then falling into our own problematic communication and behavior. 

Even when we are able to achieve working together in a productive way, the chances are this capacity will fluctuate depending on the stress level.

It is better to assume that, under stress, reciprocal good will and behavior usually require ongoing hard work if they do occur at all.


Being unconditionally constructive is a powerful but highly demanding way to stay in a leadership role in tough interactions. It means always acting in ways that raise the chances of improving the ability to work together no matter what others do.

This practice does not guarantee agreement or shared values. It means that we try to find constructive ways to manage differences even if others are not.  

This practice is also not about how to be ‘good.’  It is about how to be effective. (Fisher and Brown). There is not much chance for a very good outcome if all the participants in an interaction choose to fall victim to a contagion of counterproductive behavior.

Key practices of being unconditionally constructive include:
  • Always look beyond the taking of fixed positions to find common interests.
  • Always consider consulting with others before making any decisions.
  • Always listen actively to others. Make sure they know you understand their views even if you disagree and even if they are critical of you.
  • Always try to understand the observations and data on which others’ conclusions are based.
  • Always sustain respect and accept others as worthy of consideration. Stay engaged.
  • Always check your own stories and assumptions against observable facts and data.
  • Always avoid attributing bad intentions to others even if their impact on you is negative.
  • Always avoid blaming, judging, labeling, and expressing intense emotion.

Being unconditionally constructive does not mean abandoning what we care most about or giving in to placate or to be nice. In fact, a very important practice is to sustain clarity about our own goals, values, needs and concerns and also to communicate them clearly.

Being too quick to abandon or revise our best interests in reaction to the other party’s unconstructive behavior without careful reflection ends up being harmful to the partnership in the long run due to regret, frustration, or feelings of being coerced.

All difficult interactions present us with a choice. We can choose leadership through being unconditionally constructive and raise the chances for success as well as improving relationships. Or, we can abandon the leadership position and raise the chances of acting in destructive ways, making relationships more dysfunctional, and failing.

First, manage your brain.  

10/16/2014

 
Picture
  • Read the synopsis in the Resources section at First, manage your brain.

    OR

  • Obtain the full length version (with the same title as the synopsis) by subscribing for free monthly articles and blogs--click below.

Subscribe for free monthly articles and blogs and
receive a link to the full length version of First, manage your brain
available to subscribers only.

Subscribe 

The Ladder of Inference

9/22/2014

 
Picture
As humans, we are hard-wired to leap to assumptions in ways which create tension with others, especially under the pressure of stress and complex problems. 

This hard-wiring derives from ancient parts of the brain which evolved early on to generate automatic survival reactions--flight, fight, or freeze.

Difficulties in modern social situations can activate these pathways and drive us in nanoseconds, outside of our awareness, to faulty interpretations not infrequently accompanied by strong emotions. This happens to everyone. We cannot stop our brains from this quick process. But, we can modify it. One way is through stopping, even for a few seconds, to observe the mind.

The Ladder of Inference (1,2) is a tool to make visual these rapid movements of the mind and help us pause for reflection before we take action. The bottom rung of the ladder represents all the observable data in a situation. Our hard-wiring leads to rapid selection of part of the data and then "up the ladder" to judgments or assumptions, and finally to conclusions and action at the highest rung. Such actions are at risk for being unproductive or counterproductive for work relationships and problem solving. 

The Ladder can be divided into as many as 7 or more steps to represent schematically the brain's information processing. There is not one right number of steps. I use four because that is all I can remember in the midst of conflict which is when I use the tool to mentally orient myself. In the example shown above, my brain causes me to get very negative about a colleague, Chris.
  • At the bottom rung is all observable data I could consider from my working relationship with Chris or even just for this one day.
  • At the next higher rung, the brain selects data out of this pool. This day, Chris is late to a meeting and does not apologize. Because this has happened before and/or because I am particularly sensitive that day, my brain immediately focuses on that one piece of data.
  • From selected data, the brain moves to judgments, assumptions, and opinions--i.e. making meaning out of the selected data. In this case, I assume Chris is totally disengaged and not committed to the team.
  • At the highest point of the ladder, conclusions and actions are taken. I am gripped by my interpretations to the point that I don't think I can work with Chris. Or, I might withdraw from Chris, disrupting the flow of work between us. Or I might publicly attack him for his "bad attitude" (an interpretation which has not been checked out).

If we keep the ladder in mind in the midst of conversations, we can step back to observe our own thinking. We can shift to asking questions which move our thinking back to data and experience opening us to more choices for communication and action.  We can ask:
  • What am I thinking?
  • What interpretations and judgments have I made?
  • On what data am I basing these conclusions?
  • What is my reasoning?
  • What other data am I not considering?
  • What else could be going on?
  • What other interpretations are possible here?

I can then use these same questions with others if I have sensed they have moved up the ladder. 
Research from Gervase Bushe (3) suggests that about 80% of conflicts at work occur because people have not checked out their experiences with each other--i.e. moving down the ladder with each other to share observed data and experience. When such sharing does occur, the conflict often either goes away or the issues are entirely different from what was expected.

Though simple in concept, sharing experience in this way can be very demanding because we may be gripped by strong emotion or the stakes may feel high or we may just have a strong need to be "right" at that moment. Then it can be hard to own our contribution to the tension. Slowing down to reflect requires a good deal of self-regulation of emotion and thought.

The Ladder of Inference reminds us to treat our strongest conclusions as just theories to be tested. Our first conclusions are all too likely to put us at risk for becoming part of the problem. 

References
(1) Attributed to Chris Argyris and Donald Schon. See a brief history of the development of the Ladder of Inference in
     Diana Mclain Smith The Elephant in the Room, 2011, pgs. 275 - 276
(2) Thanks to the American Academy on Communication in Healthcare for the Ladder of Inference image.
(3) Gervase Bushe Clear Leadership, Davies-Black, Nicholas Brealey Publishing 2010

Download pdf

Having trouble motivating others?--a quick diagnostic

7/30/2014

 
Picture
First reflect:
(1) Check your theory of motivation.
"Having trouble motivating others?" is a trick question. You can't motivate others--at least if you want intrinsic motivation (defined as when people are fully willing and embrace a change out of interest and commitment).

Adults make their own choices. Trying to coax or arm-twist is likely to cause them to withdraw or just comply which leads to poor outcomes in complex tasks. Intrinsic motivation arises through partnership and collaboration. People have to "talk their way" toward taking on a change. The leader's task is to create the environment for collaborative relationships which can support robust conversations about change.

(2) Check your state of reactivity. If you are impatient or frustrated, you are likely to be in a reactive state and at risk for coaxing and arm-twisting. Find a way to get curious about others--use the five factors listed below to guide your questions. Find your way to trusting and respecting different decision-making processes.

(3) Check the context and state of relationships.
For example, if you have previously fallen into pressuring others to change, it will take time to build trust as you shift to a collaborative approach. What other factors in the environment are influencing consideration of a particular change?

After reflection:
(4) Ask others questions to explore five factors for engagement with intrinsic motivation.
Understanding:

  • What is your understanding of the change?
  • How would you describe it to someone else?
Importance:
  • What is most important/meaningful for you at work? What makes you most enthusiastic about your work? (Ask "why" five times.)
  • How could the change we are working on benefit what is most important to you?
  • What is at risk for you if it does not go well? What are your concerns?
Choice:
  • Is there a specific action which would be a good place for you to start?
  • How do you want to participate in design and implementation?
Confidence:
  • How confident are you that we can mitigate the risks of this change for you?
  • How could we do that? What might you do?
  • How confident are you that you can be successful?
  • What are barriers?
  • Is there a barrier that is most important to work on right now?
  • What action might you test right now?
  • What actions might help from me?
  • What help and support do you need (e.g. coaching, consultation, training)?
Ongoing support:
  • How will we know if things are going well or not?
  • When will we meet next to check how things have gone?

When considering a change, motivation does not usually happen overnight. Even with the most charismatic, inspirational speech, you are lucky if you inspire no more than about 20% of people to action. Most people need ongoing conversations, individual consideration, and collaboration to take new directions.


Teamwork as perpetual feedback

7/21/2014

 
Picture
"The single most important skill to have in working through any problem is the ability to give constructive feedback. Why? Because most often problems are expressed as criticism of someone's actions." (1)

The stakes for feedback are higher on teams because "learning what several people expect of you is far more difficult than learning what one other person expects and needs." (2)  In effective teams, everyone helps each other to perform his/her role to meet expected outcomes--in Schein's words, "perpetual helping." But, feedback is the key mechanism for this helping. It is a means of constant course correction.

Because of the nature of personal exposure with feedback, the environment of trust on teams is essential. As Schein states, "What we think of as respect or trust is basically the feeling that you will not be humiliated or embarrassed even if your behavior deviates from the norm and is viewed as unhelpful. Instead you get task relevant information that allows you to figure out how to become more helpful in the effort to achieve goals." (2)

Helpful feedback is an art and skill which only develops with intentional practice. Practice gradually normalizes the discomfort of feedback.(3)  Over time, a feedback-rich culture can make feedback less a source of anticipated discomfort and more a source of desired learning. 


Key components of productive feedback include (from references 1 and 2):
(a) prior setting of team norms and work process specifications
(b) specific, concrete, behavioral descriptions related to achieving goals (not good vs. bad)
(c) avoidance of labels, generalizations, and characterizations (e.g. "You are lazy.")
(d)
using "I" statements and owning feedback as perceptions as opposed to "Truth"
(e) asking for the other person's perception in response
(f) stating genuine positive regard along with the feedback wherever appropriate


References
(1) Schein, Edgar Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help Berrewtt-Koehler Publishers,Inc., 2009
(2) Scholtes, Peter R. et al The Team Handbook, Third Edition Oriel Incorporated, 2003

(3) Brown, Brene Daring Greatly Gotham Books, 2012

Wicked questions and polarities

6/30/2014

 
Picture
In complex systems, issues that look like problems to solve through "either/or" arguments are often really polarities in disguise. Polarities are issues for which there are "two or more interdependent right answers." (1)

Both
sides of a polarity need to be explored and managed well if solutions are to be sustainable. Unbalanced solutions overemphasizing one side of a polarity will lead to swings back and forth between opposing strategies over time
. (1)

Wicked questions (2,3) can be used to facilitate movement from "either/or" arguments into "both/and" dialogue. They are designed to help teams jointly address the upsides and downsides of each part of the polarity equally, without judgment or blame.

Examples of wicked questions (from Ref. 3 below):
"What opposing-yet-complementary strategies do we use simultaneously in order to be successful?;" "How is it that we have ____  and we have _____simultaneously?;" "How does each side of this polarity have benefits?;" "In what ways does each side of this polarity lead to liabilities?"  It helps to offer up front education about polarities and to provide facilitation to help move from debate to mutual exploration.

For example, an argument framing a problem as whether to use directive vs. participatory decision making styles could be re-framed by asking "In what ways do we need both? What are the benefits and risks of each approach?" The aim is to create solutions which maximize benefits and minimize risks of each side of the polarity. (1)  For example, benefits of a directive style include more timely and efficient decisions. The risks can be squelching of individual initiative and less motivation. A participatory style might mitigate these downsides but, if overused, could lead to its own problems--such as decisions getting mired down in group process.

Examples of other polarities include: top-down control vs. bottom-up individual/team freedom and initiative; stability vs. change; centralized vs. decentralized planning and implementation; and equality vs. hierarchy. There is evidence that companies which are visionary, successful, and enduring are able to embrace polarities, especially about top-down control vs. freedom and initiative. (4)

Picture
References
(1) Barry Johnson Polarity Management:
     identifying and managing unsolvable
     problems,
1992
(2)
Brenda Zimmerman et al Edgeware:
     insights from complexity science,
1998
(3) Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless
     Liberating Structures: simple rules to
     unleash a culture of innovation,
2013

(4) Jim Collins and Jerry I. Porras Built to Last:
     successful habits of visionary companies,
2004

Two ways to capitalize on positive actions and experiences

6/25/2014

 
Picture
Research in positive psychology suggests that "how you celebrate is more predictive of strong relations than how you fight." (Martin E.P.Seligman Flourish, 2011)

Capitalizing on positive actions, experiences, and events to improve satisfaction, well-being and quality of relationships involves offering detailed, nuanced responses rather than the more common brief exclamation. Here are two types of situations and the recommended approach.

(1) When someone does something you appreciate, offer positive regard
.
(termed "ongoing regard" in Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey How The Way We Talk Can Change The Way We Work, 2001)

More powerful positive effect is achieved by offering behaviorally specific information rather than a brief, general response--e.g. "I really appreciate the way you took the time before our meeting to
summarize the key supporting data. That really facilitated our decision making." This is in contrast to the relatively common "You did a great job!"

The detail in the first response is likely to feel more thoughtful and genuine than the more vague and global "great job." Also, starting with "I" rather than "You" makes it feel more like the speaker is offering potentially valuable information from experience for the receiver to consider rather than conferring some form of judgment. The latter can subtly diminish any intended positive effect.

(2) When someone reports experiencing a positive event, respond in an active-constructive way. Such responses have been linked by research to increased well-being and relationship benefits such as increased commitment and trust. (Shelley T. Gable et al in Advances in Experimental Psychology Vol. 42, 195-257, 2010)

As with positive regard, benefits are achieved by going beyond the more usual brief exclamation (e.g. "That's great. Congratulations.") and asking questions about the event, seeking additional details, elaborating on the possible implications and benefits for the discloser, and commenting on why the event is meaningful to the discloser in particular. Such responses are also more powerful when accompanied by conveying emotions of interest, happiness, or pride. (Gable et al, 2010)

We have a consensus!....?

6/18/2014

 
Picture
One method of group decision making I have observed, not uncommonly, is for someone to vigorously put forth a proposed decision and look around the room.

A few people remain silent and still, a few nod their heads, and maybe one or two exclaim “Yes.” Then the person who wants the decision announces: "We have a consensus!" (After all, "everyone agreed--no one stated any objections.")

Poor implementation and outcomes in such situations are quite likely. High quality consensus requires that each person give explicit indication of being able both to live with the decision and to fully commit to successful implementation—even if not fully satisfied. This occurs only with balanced, fair, and rational discussion in which everyone participates and everyone feels heard. (Chris Mcgoff The Primes, 2012 and Peter Scholtes et al The Team Handbook, 1989)

Poor quality consensus decisions result from lack of a shared definition of consensus, lack of a systematic and clear way for each person to indicate if they are in consensus, and arguments and debates as opposed to assuring all opinions are fully heard. Also, use of traditional definitions like "no one voices objections," "everyone agrees with everything," "everyone is fully satisfied," or "majority rules" are not effective and perhaps even destructive to the best efforts. (McGoff, 2012)

Groups have used a wide variety of methods for each person to specifically indicate if they are in consensus: An example is to use a scale of 1 - 5  with "5" meaning a high level of enthusiasm and "1" meaning no enthusiasm. A cut-off is defined (e.g at a rating of '1" or "2" even from just one person) which means insufficient enthusiasm to commit to implementation. The effort to come to a decision would then stop and dialogue would be restarted. This might lead to revision of the proposed decision or a shift in enthusiasm due to deeper exploration of issues. This iterative process increases the odds of a creative decision and shared motivation for implementation.

High quality consensus decision making is not easy.
It requires high quality dialogue so that decisions reflect the thinking of all group members. The skills for moving back and forth between checking for consensus and dialogue require a good deal of intentional practice over time.

<<Previous
    Blog
    Subscribe
    Subscribe to receive periodic free articles and tools for subscribers only. 

    Categories

    All
    Brain Science
    Decision Making
    Dialogue
    Engagement And Motivation
    Feedback
    Meetings
    Positive Psychology
    Power
    Practice Of Leadership
    Reactivity And Reflection
    Teams
    Tools
    Vision

    Archives

    March 2020
    February 2020
    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    October 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    November 2015
    August 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014


    Contact Neil

Copyright Neil Baker M.D., 2021 all rights reserved
Neil Baker Consulting and Coaching
State of Washington,
Photos used under Creative Commons from blondinrikard, bertknot, ymturner, jurvetson, HikingArtist.com