The Importance of Place

By Cindy Vallance

PLACE is the 9th of Nancy Kline’s principles for a thinking environment. What does a place need to offer to help us think? In her book, she compares two locations – a boiler/storage room used as a meeting room and a sleek designer spec office tower conference room. Which was better? In these instances, for her, the answer was neither. Why?

From boiler room

The reality was that it wasn’t just the appearance of the space that was important. It was the sense in these instances that the people didn’t matter – form over function at two ends of the spectrum.

 

to Boardroom?

The reality is that we may or may not have very much control over the physical space we inhabit – especially at work.  But when others come into our ‘space’ what can we do with what we have available to us to show people that they matter so they can think better?

Can we rearrange the tables to make the room for a meeting more welcoming or perhaps more informal? Can we do anything to manage light and temperature to ensure optimal comfort for them? Can we simply offer a cup of coffee, tea or a glass of water to welcome the person to our space?

We think better when we feel respected and that we matter. Place counts.

 

Fan the flames of enthusiasm or quench them with the ‘fear factor’?

If we mention change, what are the words that spring to mind? Improvement, Worry, Fear, Concern, Waste, Challenge, Opportunity, Re-birth?

Fear (or at least ‘worry’) is, I suspect, a common response and is certainly a term often mentioned by commentators on organisational change as being an issue to handle with care. ‘Resistance’ is another common term which in some cases may be fear disguised as bravado (although remember that resistance may also be a source of strongly held, and potentially helpful, alternative views – see: Resistance is useful: a new assumption?).

This begs a question – is fear the dominant emotion of a changing work environment?

The answer for any organisation lies in the culture (norms, behaviours, values, rules, conversations) that is promoted (largely by leaders). Is change a difficulty, a problem, a challenge, an opportunity or something that you are just going to have to put up with? What are the messages, stories and perspectives that we demonstrate, repeat, encourage and expect? Is it possible to eliminate a sense of fear by the way we explore and discuss the issues of change?

Of course our views and behaviour are only part of the wider picture. There is also the fear of stepping out and being different, or of ‘raising your head above the parapet’ by doing things differently (with the implication that your head is likely to get shot off!).

It is also not unusual to stumble across incidences of fear being applied (by ‘management’) as a tool to get people to do things.  This might be apparent in the way in which meetings are constructed, how conversations are initiated by leaders, in the ways that objectives are set, in responses to feedback, ideas or proposals. When established behaviours contrast with the stated expectations (for innovation, improvement, sharing or other working values), we need to be ready to challenge the old orthodoxy.

Every manager needs to understand, as Frederick Herzberg noted in his landmark 1968 Harvard Business Review article, if you kick a dog it may move (out of fear) but is NOT motivated. Fear causes a fight/flight response in people, which focuses on generating action to avoid the cause of the fear and not on producing better work or doing things more effectively (Aguayo, 1990). The fight/flight response driven by people who use fear often causes hiding, running or cheating and none of these things lead to positive change which is what the organisation really needs. Sometimes leaders need reminding of this again and again; Herzberg’s 44-year-old article has been re-issued at least five times (most recently in 2008) and still remains relevant; people are motivated from within – they themselves must want the change and it is these motivations which will make things happen.

Aguayo R. 1990, Dr Deming: The American who taught the Japanese About Quality, Mercury, London.

Herzberg, F. 1968, “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 46, iss. 1, pp. 53–62

Seddon, J. (2005) Freedom from Command and Control, Vanguard Press, Buckingham, UK.

Truth in Diversity

By Cindy Vallance

For many reasons I personally shy away from the concept of ‘truth.’ The world is too complex and my subjective perspectives based on my own life experiences too particularly individual to make a claim on truth.

But Nancy Kline’s 8th principle for a thinking environment holds strong appeal to me. DIVERSITY. She asserts that diversity enhances thinking because it is true. The opposite of diversity – homogeneity – assumes we are all alike and thus underestimates or even denies our differences.

If we assume, however, that diversity is true, then we no longer will assume that the dominant group is superior, that everyone should emulate it and that power should accrue to it. We will hunger for diversity, we will seek it and we will appreciate it for what it is – truth.

So how do we fight our own inherent prejudices? Since we are talking about thinking as equals, let’s consider the prejudice of intellectual superiority. Next time you are in a diverse group, ask yourself:

“If I knew that the people whom I have been pre-conditioned or taught to believe are less intelligent than I am are actually bright and able to think well about any subject of their choice, how would I feel and behave when I hear them think? And how would I regard them as my listeners when it is their turn to hear me think?”

 Welcoming difference and accepting the truth of diversity is essential to thinking well.

Information Exchange – Timing Counts

By Cindy Vallance

Principle 7 to develop a thinking environment is INFORMATION. There is no question that information is power, you get what you measure, and that evidence based decision making requires the right information at the right time. As Nancy Kline puts it “withholding information from someone is an act of intellectual imperialism” while conversely, “not bothering to seek information is an act of intellectual recklessness.”

However, one challenge is to strike the right timing balance when it comes to information exchange. What should we think about if we want to get the timing right?

Firstly, resist the urge to interrupt a speaker midstream. How do you really know what the other person is about to say unless you allow them to finish providing the information they wish to convey?

But what if they are misinformed? Shouldn’t you jump right in to correct them? If you are truly trying to support them to think, the answer may be ‘not yet.’ Think about your goal – do you want to show them they don’t know as much as you do or do you genuinely want to work with them to be a thinking equal? That doesn’t mean being irresponsible by withholding information, it simply means getting the timing right.

Secondly, think about timing when asking for information. Sometimes just listening will bring you the answers you need. If your goal is to help someone else to think then don’t ask them a question when they are in the middle of a stream of thought. Wait, pay attention and really listen.

 

Misplaced assumptions about change: does ‘participation’ mean everyone?

Just a few final words to round up my discussion of Leandro Herrero’s challenges to our common assumptions about change. You can see related blogs on the following links:

Highlighting misplaced assumptions about change: the myth of leadership-driven change

Change and work: more misplaced assumptions

“Resistance is useful”: a new assumption?

 

A key learning point for anyone driving change is the important leverage provided by behaviour. When discussing change and improvement I commonly encounter suggestions that what is needed ‘always comes down to communication’. True enough perhaps, but we also need to remember that communication is a product of people’s behaviour (as communicators and as listeners).

The temptation is to allow discussions of communication to lead us down paths of procedure, process and technology, rather than thinking, people, behaviour and habits. The same is true if people’s capability is raised as an issue – ‘we just need more (or better) training’. Again this does not necessarily hit the nub of the problem.

Hererro suggests that we need to shake off the assumption “Communication and training are the vital components of change”. They are symptoms and processes of change rather than the true causes and content that we need to address. The engine of change is often people’s behaviour. However we need to explore this further – commentators such as Deming, Senge and Seddon would point out that behaviours are often caused by other influences. If we want to make change happen, we need to understand and shift those influences and encourage people to adopt the change.

The trend for participative management has led to a paradigm that involving everyone is the only way to success; “Everybody needs to be involved in the change”, but is this really true? Communication-to-all is actually the most ineffective way to reach everybody (the common ‘sheep-dip’ approach, often packaged as training). Instead, we need to become better at using internal networks and these networks need to be directly tapped as active resources to embed new ways of working into the organisation.

Another common comment I have encountered which Hererro also challenges is “There is no point in creating change in one division without the rest of the company participating.”  Herrero himself suggests that instead it is possible to establish change through ‘viral networks’.

 

Check out a range of ideas in these thought-provoking publications:

Herrero, L. (2006) Viral Change, meetingminds, UK.

Seddon, J. (2005) Freedom from Command and Control, Vanguard Press, Buckingham, UK.

Senge P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, Doubleday, New York.

The Need for Speed : let’s not assume that change is a slow business

It is easy to slip into thinking that  ‘change’ as a slow and often difficult process. After all, we know that we can become creatures of habit, enjoying the comfort of the familiar. But this is not what defines us. Human beings are creatures that have mastered  (or, at least, have developed) the art of adapting; changing our knowledge, decisions, behaviour, environment, relationships. It is too easy to think that we ‘don’t like change’. This is simply not the case. We are beings that not only adapt to what is around us, but we often actively choose to influence what is around us. After all, it is not uncommon for us to choose to find ways to make things better or different (either for ourselves or, sometimes, others!).

My great-grandfather (who was still around when I was a youngster) was born into the victorian age in the 1880s. He was already a young man when the Wright brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk, yet he lived to experience being a passenger flying in jet airliners and saw the Apollo astronauts land on the moon. His life experiences, work and education had to adapt fairly radically, but I imagine it was a fairly natural process – that’s life.

Organisations can change faster that society as a whole. Perhaps we need to start seeing change in our organisation as a ‘natural’ process, although one which we can actively influence ourselves. We need to see change happen in noticeable timescales; weeks and months not years. If we want people to believe in the changes we want, then they need to be able to see those changes. This implies that changes should move over short timescales rather than at barely-observable ‘glacial’ rates. Herrero (2006) goes further, suggesting that if cultural changes cannot be observed in short timeframes, then something is wrong.

He suggests that we should reject two assumptions:

“Cultural change is a slow and painful long-term affair.”
No -it need not be slow – there is a better way.

“Short-term wins are tactical but they do not usually represent real change.”  Again no – with viral networks, small changes can lead to a big impact.

So, what is the challenge? We need to accelerate change by engaging networks of people in making things happen. In a previous post it was suggested that small sets of behavioural changes, taken on and shared by informal groups of people can generate improvements in a non-linear way, as Hererro terms it, a ‘viral’ spread.

Of course, our blog posts and comments have raised questions about how the position of our leaders influences change. What if leaders don’t want the change? That places the challenge on us to influence them. Influence changes to the way routines are followed and then enable people to see the impact as it evolves.

At a recent staff conference on Service Excellence we included a keynote speech and workshop led by the student union president. This is not revolutionary, but merely having students in the room at a staff development event changes perspectives and establishes new conversations and ways of thinking.

To influence others we need to encourage quick, meaningful changes; not just ticking items off the ‘to do’ list, but adopting new behaviours, new ways of thinking, new habits. These things may appear less tangible, but they do have impact, they don’t need to wait for a sign-off at the next Academic Committe Meeting and they do allow change to happen much quicker.

Remember to read:

Herrero, L. (2006) Viral Change, meetingminds, UK.

 

Fear of Feelings

By Cindy Vallance

When was the last time you or someone else referenced FEELINGS (principle 6 to develop a thinking environment) within a work context? When someone is upset, for instance, or angry, we will likely be most comfortable if we can make this demonstration of feelings stop – and the quicker the better. Maybe we think it will take too much time or that we have lost control if our feelings show. That is certainly what society seems to tell us. Just pull yourself together we think. But as much as we may wish we could because of this sense that feelings at work aren’t appropriate, none of us can leave our feelings behind when we walk through that door.

For instance, we can’t think well if we are upset. But if we repress the outward demonstration of our feelings too quickly, that doesn’t mean we have stopped having them. We have just pushed them inward – and we still won’t be able to think well.

Perhaps we should be a little less afraid of feelings – for ourselves and for others.

Try this when someone next shows their feelings – especially if they are the ones that make us most uncomfortable – anger, grief, despair, sadness. Sit with them, don’t panic, pay attention without smothering them with our concern, and let them find their way back. They will then think more clearly.

Competition Kills Encouragement

By Cindy Vallance

The title of this blog comes directly from Nancy Kline’s book “Time to Think” in which she outlines the fifth of the ten principles needed to build a thinking environment. ENCOURAGEMENT is a powerful tool. Encouragement provides a rich field for acknowledging interdependencies and for celebrating successes. Its opposite, competition, pits people and ideas against each other in a never-ending battle to be the ‘best.’ However, competition often only results in ‘better than’ not ‘best” and this result really may not be very good at all.

Competition is one of the qualities that prevents us from asking the questions that should be asked and that no one wants to ask. Encouragement, on the other hand, sets us up to find good ideas together.

How much encouragement do we give to others to share their ideas? How excited do we get about their ideas? Do we listen without competition, without turning away, without interrupting, without shaking our head or rolling our eyes?

Encouragement is the scaffolding, the support structure, that helps new and creative ideas to develop. These ideas can then be implemented for the benefit of all of those who are daring enough to think together.

Appreciation is not about being nice

By Cindy Vallance

APPRECIATION is the fourth principle that we need to develop to have a thinking environment. Nancy Kline suggests practicing a ratio of 5:1 appreciation to criticism when it comes to our interactions with others if we want them to think for themselves. How many of us get anywhere near that ratio?

Appreciation is not just about saying thank you – and even thank you isn’t really appreciation if it isn’t sincere and specific.

However, we work in an environment of debate and criticism. This isn’t a bad thing – we need to constantly question what appear to be facts to progress our thinking about a host of subjects and ideas. However, we can also take this to extremes. In general, being critical in our society can often be seen as equivalent to demonstrating intellect and therefore being positive becomes its opposite – naïveté or simplistic generalisation. But you don’t have to agree with someone to appreciate them and you don’t even have to like them.

Appreciation is not about empty flattery. People are smart enough to see right through this. Appreciation should be “genuine, succinct and concrete.” It should also be timely so don’t wait too long to express it. And it should also be direct. Why does it sometimes seem that when we do hear something positive it comes to us second-hand? Like any kind of feedback, appreciation is best expressed directly to the person to whom it is meant for.

And when someone expresses appreciation, do accept it, don’t dismiss it. Just say thanks. This response demonstrates you aren’t undermining their opinion or judgment and it will help you both develop a healthy thinking environment.

 

Don’t be discouraged: keep your eyes wide open

I was recently reminded of Peter Senge’s (1994) work on ‘Systems Thinking’ and change. He observes that often things (including behaviour) appear to “grow worse before it grows better”. He suggests that this happens because we start to see underlying issues more clearly. For us, those issues were previously either unmentionable, unnoticed or just not a priority.

This bubbling up of negativity, challenge and expectation can cause despair – we start seeing the dangers of the iceberg lurking below the waterline. Also, other people might not like the fact that we want to challenge ‘the way things get done around here’. But don’t be discouraged!

This is a measure that things are getting better; formerly ‘undiscussable’ problems have simply risen to the surface – things can now change! As Senge notes, taking things forward might mean that an occasional toe will be stepped upon. But keep experimenting, keep building a better understanding of what is needed and keep seeking solutions to make things better.


More from Peter Senge:

Senge P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, Doubleday, New York.

Senge, P. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.