Category Archives: Change Principles

Change Principles, Trust

Building Success by Building Trust

5 Comments

By Cindy Vallance

What do surveys about asset management firms and the NHS have to do with the topic of trust?

As outlined in an April 2012 Harvard Business Review blog, more than 100 asset management firms around the world were surveyed for the strength of their cultures and for the effectiveness of their leadership teams. One of the top success factors was that “There is a high level of trust among team members. ”

Those conducting the survey stated “Over time, the team must develop trust by having clear rules of engagement and accountabilities. This trust then allows the team members to move beyond “politically correct” conversation or “politically incorrect” confrontation to fruitful debate and dialogue…leaders show an unusual commitment to getting the trust factor right. Our interpretation of this is that it relates to other surveys of investment professionals which indicate that their top desire for improvement in their firms is to achieve more open communication and debate…these cannot occur in environments with low trust.”

On the other hand, a March 2012 People Management blog reported on the results of a recent NHS survey. Here the results highlighted that “the survey identifies a lack of trust in managers’ abilities which undermines trust and could stall change.”

The comparison of these two surveys reinforce the importance of trust for organisational success. If we reflect on the four aspects of trust highlighted in my last blog: ability, benevolence, integrity and predictability, how can we improve on any that are lacking?

Ability – this aspect of trust is perhaps the most straight forward to rectify, although not necessarily easy. Providing or taking advantage of training and guidance and then identifying specific goals and working towards these over time should improve ability.

Benevolence – to increase benevolence it is critical to get rid of any sense that either party has a hidden agenda and instead highlight areas of common interest and mutual benefit.

Integrity – increasing integrity requires a willingness to engage in open discussion to arrive at common principles and to set boundaries for mutual expectations.

Predictability – only the repeated demonstration of positive behaviours will help others to be confident that what they have seen in the past will be repeated in the present and future.

The reality is that trust and distrust are not opposite ends of the spectrum. The same person can be trusted or distrusted in different areas. I may trust my accountant to get me a good tax rebate but I certainly wouldn’t trust her to perform brain surgery on me. In my next blog, I will discuss different types of trust.

In the meantime, are you currently facing any situations where you could work to improve some aspect of trust?

References

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/04/where_teamwork_thrives_in_the.html?awid=9186393578493521766-3271

This post is part of the HBR Insight Center on The Secrets of Great Teams. Do take a look at their other posts for practical team building ideas.

http://blog.peoplemanagement.co.uk/2012/03/nhs-staff-engagement-on-life-support/

 

 

 

Change Principles, Trust

When I say I trust someone, what I mean is…

Leave a comment

By Cindy Vallance

While by no means definitive, here are a few possible responses to the question  I asked in my last blog: “When I say I trust someone, what I mean is…”

“I feel that I will not be taken advantage of.”

“I will find in someone’s behaviour what I expect, not what I fear.”

“I believe that the individual I am trusting will consider my interests and my welfare.”

“I know I can rely on their opinions, actions, and integrity.”

How do these answers define the meaning of trust? What they share is the expectation that the other individual’s behaviour, in relation to the respondent, will be positive.

A more formal definition for trust would be be “a willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the behaviour or intentions of another individual, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other person.”

Coming back to the concept of risk-taking that I mentioned last week, we can see why trust is critical. If we take a risk, we expose our vulnerability because there is always the possibility of failure with risk. Why would we willingly expose our vulnerability to anyone we didn’t consider trust-worthy? When we are dealing with someone we don’t trust, we rightly wonder “If I fail, what will happen to me?”

But when we consider that someone is trust-worthy, what qualities are we looking for? Research* identifies four key characteristics:

ABILITY – competence in meeting our expectations

BENEVOLENCE – positive orientation towards us

INTEGRITY – commitment to commonly accepted principles and  behavioural standards

PREDICTABILITY – consistency of positive behaviours demonstrated over time

It is easy to consider these qualities when we are evaluating others’ behaviour  – and perhaps find them wanting. However, there is much more we can do by starting with ourselves.

Reflect on the four qualities. Ask – Am I demonstrating these qualities so that others will trust me? What evidence do I have that others trust me? What is the basis of that trust?

And what can I do if I believe I could improve in the demonstration of any of these components of trust? I will come back to that next week.

*In addition to research by A.R. Elangovan, also see Hope-Hailey, Veronica, Ros Searle and Graham Dietz. Organisational Effectiveness: How Trust Helps. People Management, March 2012.

Change Principles, Trust

Trust and Consequences

1 Comment

By Cindy Vallance

I have been interested in the subject of trust for some time but have struggled to find the best way to discuss it. Who would come to a meeting to discuss trust? Yet trust is in short supply in nearly every strata of society and in nearly every organisation and institution.

Why is trust so important?

In the absence of trust, what do we get? Cynicism – especially towards change, low motivation and commitment, lack of confidence in the organisation, a reluctance to take risks, and an enormous cost in untapped potential and possibility.

It can actually be easier to trust than to distrust, since in practice no one can constantly monitor another’s behaviour. Trust therefore can act as a substitute for control. The trouble is that at this level trust is really no more than indifference.

However, there are many more positive and important reasons to consider the value of trust. In a group or team situation, the presence of trust will improve the group’s cohesion , errors and failures will be better tolerated and ideas, opportunities and problems will all be more readily shared.

Language is important and we all attach different meanings to the same words. Next time I will share some responses to the question below and will discuss some meanings of trust. In the meantime, think about your own response to this question or consider using the Comments section below and share your thoughts.

“When I trust someone, what I mean is … (fill in the blanks) …”

I would like to acknowledge that this series on trust is based very much on my own learning from Professor A.R. Elangovan, Associate Dean and Director, Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, Canada who generously shared his research interests on this topic when I was a student there and who truly walks the talk of what he teaches.

Reference:

Betrayal of Trust in Organizations, A. R. Elangovan and Debra L. Shapiro The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 547-566 Published by: Academy of Management.

 

Change Principles, Trust

Trust – A Foundation for Change

1 Comment

By Cindy Vallance

Recently in our Change Academy blogs we have discussed principles that inform a thinking environment to foster change, overcoming myths about change, and have shared a range of perspectives on change.

For instance our 26 March blog on management with facts emphasises the importance of  trust which enables us to look at facts together to inform productive discussions.

The reality is that there can be no change without risk. And there can be no appetite for risk-taking without a strong foundation of trust.

Trust has something in common with the weather and motherhood…it is widely talked about and widely assumed to be good for organisations. ” Parke & Miller, 2000.

In the next few blogs, I will discuss why we trust, how we define trust, strategies we can use to build trust, and what we can do if trust has been eroded or broken.

“You must trust and believe in people or life becomes impossible. ” Anton Chekhov

 

Change Principles

Putting into practice all 10 thinking principles

4 Comments

By Cindy Vallance

In the past ten blogs, I have discussed Nancy Kline’s 10 principles for a thinking environment (http://bit.ly//yE6Hhl).

Why not come up with your own way of remembering and practicing these 10 principles? Make them real by thinking for yourself and making them your own.

Attention

Equality

Ease

Appreciation

Encouragement

Feelings

Information

Diversity

Place

Incisive questions

And finally, there is much more in Nancy Kline’s book Time to Think, but to end this series, I will conclude with the practical tips that may make some of your meetings a more conducive environment for thinking:

  • give everyone a turn to speak
  • at the beginning ask everyone to relate something that is going well in their work or in the group’s work
  • give attention without interruption to every open discussion during the meeting – try framing agenda items as questions
  • when permission is given use incisive questions in pairs or with the larger group’s permission to help each other remove limiting assumptions
  • when thinking stalls, divide into pairs and give each person five minutes to think out loud and without interruption about the topic
  • go around in turns intermittently throughout the meeting to give everyone an equal turn to say something if they choose to
  • encourage diverse views and information sharing
  • permit the expression of feelings
  • end the meeting by asking everyone what they felt went well and what they respect or appreciate about the person next to them
  • do what you can to create a space for the meeting that demonstrates the value you place on the people

 

Change Principles

Do Our Assumptions Limit Us?

Leave a comment

By Cindy Vallance

The tenth and final principle by Nancy Kline to build a thinking environment is about the power of asking INCISIVE QUESTIONS.

We all make assumptions. We couldn’t get through a day without them. But do we limit ourselves with our assumptions or do we expand our own range of possibilities and help others to do so through the power of positive assumptions?

An illustration:

Person A  I would like to share an idea I have with my line manager but I can’t.

Person B Why not?

A I believe s/he will laugh at me.

B What are you assuming to believe s/he will laugh at you?

A I am assuming s/he will think my idea is stupid.

B Why are you assuming s/he will think your idea is stupid?

A I am assuming I am stupid.

This is usually when the questioner might say something like ‘Of course you aren’t stupid. Go talk to your manager!’ And we may or may not take this advice and talk to our manager.

But what if Person B said instead:

B Do you really think it is true that you are stupid?

A Well no…

B What are your reasons for not thinking you are stupid?

A Because I (person fills in the blank)…

B What would you have to assume instead for you to share your idea with your line manager?

A I would have to assume I am intelligent.

B So if you knew that you are intelligent, how would you take that step to share your idea?

A I would simply talk with him/her. My manager might not agree with my idea but I would certainly feel like I was making an effort worth taking seriously. 

Of course, there is no absolute guarantee that the manager won’t laugh at Person A’s idea. But if that is the case the person suggesting the idea can still walk away knowing they have genuinely made the effort. They could also use the opportunity for a further discussion. And, on the other hand, just think what positive results might occur if the manager did support the idea and what opportunities would be missed if the idea had never been shared?

A health warning on incisive questions. They don’t work by stealth. The two people engaged in this type of exchange need to both agree up front that they want to have this kind of conversation and that it is okay to question the other’s assumptions. If this agreement doesn’t happen the questioner can come across as either overly aggressive or attempting to practice amateur psychoanalysis, neither which is useful. But when two people are both willing to try it out, testing assumptions through incisive questions can be very powerful.

 

Change Principles

The Importance of Place

Leave a comment

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.

 

Change Principles, Myths

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

2 Comments

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.

Change Principles

Truth in Diversity

1 Comment

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.

Change Principles

Information Exchange – Timing Counts

1 Comment

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.