Keeping You In The Loop

Before starting the seventh part of this series, have a look at the summary of the 6 previous articles below:

Part 1: The situation we are in determines the roles we play and the rules we follow; and we reciprocate every request with a response. We also saw that each situation determines the face-value that we can claim for ourselves. The face-value comes with the situation and it is scripted in our roles.

Part 2: The way human interaction actually works is through the constant exchange of social currency (love, attention, acknowledgement, etc). In the end, human interaction can easily be summarized as a series of “+1″ and “-1″ in order to equilibrate the face-values that have been claimed. We build and deepen relationships through cycles of testing and response. Building a relationship can be compared to making deposits of empathy (the exchange of “+1″) on the emotional bank account of trust.

Part 3: In the same way as our reciprocity-reflex forces us to equilibrate the “+1″ and the “-1″ statuses of a situation, we have another reflex: the chameleon-like tendency to resonate with the influences of a situation.

Part 4: The PDI (Power Distance Index) of the culture you are from determines what the “+1″ and the “-1″ exactly are worth to you. It turns out that formality provides a system of calibration when cultural differences are too big. You can think of formality as the use of a single currency (like the Dollar or the Euro) in order to make the transaction safer between parties from different cultures.

Part 5: In digital communications the same rules and laws of gravity apply, but we lack non-verbal cues of feedback. Therefore the best strategy is to rely on “connection” instead of “control” in order to equilibrate relationships.

Part 6: With the help of Transactional Analysis we can separate transactions that increase the tension in a relationship (and thus decrease the level of trust) from those that equilibrate it (the adult response). A second learning from Transactional Analysis is that ‘games people play’ are a powerful dynamics causing people to behave very chameleon-like in certain situations.

The Helping Relationship

Since the beginning of the series I have been referring to Edgar Schein’s book Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help. By now you will have noted that I consider this book an absolute must-read for any organizational change practitioner. Consider the following thought every time you are in a meeting with a customer:

Emotionally and socially, when you are asking for help you are putting yourself “one down”. It is a temporary loss of status and self-esteem not to know what to do next or to be unable to do it. It is a loss of independence to have someone else advise you, heal you, minister you, help you up, support you, even serve you.

Chances are that you will start to develop a different opinion on what resistance is. According to Shein, every helping relationship is in a state of imbalance. The person being helped is “one down” and therefore vulnerable. The helper is “one up” and therefore powerful. Much of what goes wrong in the helping process is the failure to acknowledge this initial imbalance and deal with it:

The reason the helping relationship has to be built rather than just being assumed is that , although the imbalance is clear, the social economics of how to fix it are not.

It is when a relationship or team hits a bump, we need a conversation about the conversation. But most of the times we short-cut to the content. In the end we wonder what on earth went wrong… The answer:  we failed to focus on the relationship. Worse: we did not make use of our personal toolkit.

Becoming Aware of Your Personal Toolkit

Taking care of the relationship is too simple to be true, because the tools at your disposal are as straightforward as a Swiss Armyknife. The knife below displays the tools that are available to all of us – all the time. I repeat: ALL-OF-US and ALL-THE-TIME. The knife is the ultimate relationship equilibration tool.

Asking for help: Peter Drucker once said:

The leader of the past may have been a person who knows how to tell, but the leader of the future will be a person who knows how to ask.

Asking for help opens doors with honesty and is difficult to resist. It allows your counterpart to have a stake in the solution – to ‘win’ – while you are the cause for this situation to occur.

Listening – or rather, the act of acknowledging: listening is a two-way act, as it involves listening AND acknowledging what you have understood. You need to demonstrate that you are totally engaged. Acknowledging is the part that makes people feel understood and connected.

Thanking: Gratitude is a skill we can never display too often. And yet for most people it seems like they need to wait for the perfect moment … but it never comes. It is always the right time to say ‘thank you’. Gratitude is not a limited resource and an overdose never harms.

Apologizing: Marshall Goldsmith calls this ‘the magic move‘, because an apology is a recognition that mistakes have been made and it contains an intention to change for the better. But most of all, an apology is an emotional contact with the people you care about. It is a disclosure which lets you move forward.

You will note that these four ways have one thing in common: they require you to be humble and to position yourself ‘one down’ with regards to the person you are talking to. As Goldsmith concludes:

When you declare your dependence on others, they usually agree to help.

It’s a very awkward feeling when you start to use this toolbox for the first time, because the one downness makes you more vulnerable. You are deliberately giving away control over the situation. However, by doing so it is clear that you are managing the balance and the reciprocation of the relationship.

In the end, there is nothing more powerful than that. And nothing is more difficult than that, because it requires us to let go of something that is so deeply wired into our reptile brains, i.e.: the need to be in control of a situation.

Did you know that there is a specific field of psychology that specializes in what we have previously called ‘social theatre’ and ‘social economics’? This field is called Transactional Analysis (TA).

Flashback: What We Learned So Far

One of the models of TA describes very well what happens when we throw our emotions into the power-play of status and face-value. This is the sixth article on Unraveling Human Interaction, therefore a small flashback of what we observed so far:

1. The situation we are in determines the roles we play and the rules we follow; and we reciprocate every request with a response.

2. We also saw that each situation determines the face-value that we can claim for ourselves. The face-value comes with the situation and it is scripted in our roles.

3. The way human interaction actually works is through the constant exchange of social currency (love, attention, acknowledgement, etc).

4. In the end, human interaction can easily be summarized as a series of “+1″ and “-1″ in order to equilibrate the face-values that have been claimed.

5. We build and deepen relationships through cycles of testing and response. Building a relationship can be compared to making deposits of empathy (the exchange of “+1″) on the emotional bank account of trust.

6. In the same way as our reciprocity-reflex forces us to equilibrate the “+1″ and the “-1″ statuses of a situation, we have another reflex: the chameleon-like tendency to resonate with the influences of a situation.

7. The PDI (Power Distance Index) of the culture you are from determines what the “+1″ and the “-1″ exactly are worth to you. It turns out that formality provides a system of calibration when cultural differences are too big. You can think of formality as the use of a single currency (like the Dollar or the Euro) in order to make the transaction safer between parties from different cultures.

8. In digital communications the same rules and laws of gravity apply, but we lack non-verbal cues of feedback. Therefore the best strategy is to rely on “connection” instead of “control” in order to equilibrate relationships.

The Problem With Emotions

The problem with emotions is not their intensity, but the fact that they always come in disguise. You will almost never hear people say that they are scared, angry, or sad because of a certain situation.

In 99% of the cases people (and yes – this includes me and you) communicate their emotions through “playing games.” The classic result is an emotional competition between people which – regardless of who is the winner –represents a loss for the relationship. Transactional Analysis expert Steven Karpman created a simple decoder for games like these: it is called the Drama Triangle.

Basically, there are three roles on the drama-triangle and they all have the same purpose: to create drama and to stay miserable. For example: when I behave helpless because of the train-delays today, this may trigger you to respond with resentment (‘You could have taken the car to get here’).  This is how a victim creates a persecutor. Without any doubt this interaction will also create a rescuer, i.e.: a person taking a stand for me either by offering help or by justifying your situation. The interaction between a victim and a persecutor has made it very tempting for a third person to step into the role of a rescuer.

How The Roles Play Out

This is a very brief summary of how the roles play out:

1. Persecutor (prefers Anger)

I am OK – You are not OK (REVENGE)

• Only sees errors, is critical, often in a bad mood.
• Often feels incapable and is not self-confident.
• Leadership through threats, orders; disallows flexibility.
• Can be loud but also calm.
• A persecutor does not accept ‘no’ for an answer.

2. Rescuer (prefers Fear)

I am OK – You are not OK (RESCUE)

• Always goes that extra mile to ‘help’ others.
• Is always very busy, tired, sometimes lonely, does not have 5 minutes to himself.
• Can be loud but also a silent martyr.
• Deals with feelings of guilt or shame in a very subtle manner.
• Often a hand of steel in a velvet glove.
• Helps unasked.
• A rescuer does not accept ‘no’ for an answer

3. Victim (prefers Sadness)

I am not OK – You are OK (REGRET)

• Doesn’t answer, doesn’t help, never holds a point of view.
• I don’t know / I can’t / it’s all the same to me.
• A master at using feelings of guilt.
• ‘Super-sensitive’.
• Pretends to be incompetent, but is not.
• Irresponsible regarding details that can be important to others.
• I give up! This provides me with the ultimate power.
• A victim does not accept ‘no’ for an answer.

As the drama plays out, people may suddenly switch roles, or change tactics, and others will often switch unconsciously to match this. In transactional analysis, the drama triangle is recognized in situations or ‘games’ such as:

• Why Don’t You;
• Yes But;
• If It Weren’t For You;
• Why does this Always Happen to Me?;
• See What You Made Me Do;
• You Got Me Into This;
• Look How Hard I’ve Tried; and:
• I’m Only Trying to Help You.

The purpose for each ‘player’ is to get their unspoken – and often: unconscious – needs met in a justified way, without having to acknowledge the real situation. As such, each player justifies their own position, rather than acting in a responsible way.

Getting Somewhere: A Definition of Maturity

The drama-triangle is one of the biggest dynamics causing people to behave very chameleon-like in certain situations. The waves of emotion can be so strong that one needs to be extremely strong to resist falling into one of these roles.

And that is unhealthy, because here is the thing: when we have a closer look at how drama plays out we see that drama is created and sustained though a constant exchange of ANTI-reciprocal “+1″ and “-1″! The persecutor asking “Why are you late again?” will be throwing out a status difference of one-upmanship, thereby lowering the other person in the relationship (like a parent to a child). This makes it very easy for the other person to just confirm that position in a passive-agressive way with absolute silence (childish and victim-like). The gap of status differences has widened even more with that response.

What we see here is that status differences resemble the difference between parents and children. Transactional Analysis makes it clear that there is a way out of this drama. They call it  the ‘adult’ position. In terms of social theatre and social economics this is BAD NEWS, because the adult position will equilibrate situations by:

• Redefining the roles from drama-roles to adult positions;
• Reciprocate with the correct – instead of negative – currency

So there you go: the most boring theatre you have ever seen. No fireworks anymore and no juicy details. The GOOD NEWS? You can still watch drama on TV – no need to play it out in your own relationships once you know how to decode the dynamics of it.

Finally – as a good old disclaimer – I add the warning that Daryl Conner once gave me: “Understanding human behavior does not make you immune to it.”

Organizational change practitioners who are acquainted with the literature on change management know that I am referring to Elisabeth Kuebler Ross, who stated that dying underwent five stages.  Although I think that the stages are surprisingly accurate in describing what is going on and what will come next during a change, I suspect we could do better if we look at these stages from a birthing perspective.

Same Cycle, Different Angle

It is striking how the major insights of the change cycle come from two angles that seem at first to be opposites: development psychology, and research on death and dying. Psychologists and biologists observed that we typically find children whining and being more difficult when they learn something new and it often takes a while before they adapt to and assimilate these new abilities. For human development “things will get worse before they get better” is almost a law of nature: A biological upgrade of our brain software leads to a drop in performance before we pick up and use our new- found abilities.

On the complete other side of the spectrum, Elisabeth Kuebler Ross has described her work with terminally ill patients and found that they typically come to terms with their prognosis in five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. In these cases, it is self- esteem that shows a serious drop-off and then picks up with acceptance in the same way as an infant coming to terms with its new abilities. Although most organizational change is not of a life-or-death nature, people may experience similar stages as they adjust to it, making Kuebler Ross’ advice highly applicable.

Looking at the change cycles in the figures above, it is remarkable that our field of expertise has taken the death-curve as a frame of reference. This is even more striking because the child-development perspective dates from 30 years before Elisabeth Kuebler Ross’ fieldwork.

Birthing

In an earlier article I have referred to Jean Piaget – who is generally regarded as the father of child-psychology. Piaget was the first to discover that during each new stage of development, the child’s brain-mind is prepared for the new potentials appropriate to that stage of growth. If appropriate models for those potentials are given in a safe space, learning is automatic, spontaneous and natural.

Before a child is born, there is a magical interplay of stress hormones in the bodies of the mother and the child that cause the birthing process to kick-off. The next thing you know is that childbirth goes through different stages that can equally be compared to what people go though during an organizational change. In my opinion the metaphor of birthing (instead of dying) contains far more possibilities in the context of an organizational change. Here are some examples:

• Contractions: these are the first signs of a point of no return. Contractions are painful (so I’m told) and both mother and child are going through an intense period of stress. There will be blood everywhere. There is no such thing as a clean birth. It’s unavoidable.
• The umbilical cord: It’s the cord that gives life to the child and the channel through which the child has been given strength during  pregnancy. The umbilical cord symbolizes the relationship between the owner and the future state (be it a new organization structure or an ERP platform). In most organizations the future state is strengthened by external project teams, giving little possibility for a natural umbilical cord to do the work.
• Vernix: procrastination, grapevine and whining are a necessary catalyst in the birthing of a future state. It’s the vernix that is necessary for our own protection and that is useful during the process of birthing. And just like vernix it looks ugly. You don’t need to wash it off because the skin of the newborn will absorb all of it.
• Wombing: How’s that for a new verb? With ‘wombing’ I refer to the need of a mother (a future owner) to have a child-wish, to conceive the child  voluntarily and to have an intense bonding with the child even before it is born. The bonding that occurs during pregnancy convinces the mother that the contractions and the labor ar worth it.
• 9 months of pregnancy: Time and again we see project managers trying to make 9 woman pregnant in order to deliver a baby in 1 month. It happens over and over – and every time these project managers run into the wall of time.

I am sure that you can think of much more possibilities that come to life with this metaphor and I invite you to share them in the comments section. I am convinced that a 2 hour brainstorm may result in a sparking and inspiring document detailing every aspect of the birthing process in terms of organizational change.

The Point (and the Disclaimer)

The point I am trying to make in this article is that both perspectives describe a cycle where ‘things will get worse before they get better’. It’s a law of nature. This article is an invitation to look at a same change situation from a different perspective. This will not change the nature of things – the cycle remains the same – but it will fundamentally alter the conclusions and actions that we draw from it.

And finally: a big disclaimer. The fieldwork of Elisabeth Kuebler Ross is unique and will continue to be one of the fundaments of our field of expertise. There is no way that I am doubting its validity or added value.

The first two articles in this series focus on understanding the elements of resilience and what individuals and leaders can do to build and support it. Here I’d like to focus on the third element in this model: What can we as change agents do to support and enhance human resilience as we execute critical initiatives?

Change Agents are Stewards of Human Energy

When we take on the responsibility of assisting an organization in transition, we are entrusted with a very precious resource: the life force of the humans in that organization. If we do our work well, that energy is multiplied; liberated; freed to flow more effectively. If we do our work poorly, that energy is drained; stuck; used in unproductive ways.

The link to resilience is direct: Change creates turbulence. Humans expend energy to regain equilibrium. The less energy people use to adjust to each change, the more change they can absorb, and—by definition—the more resilient they are. This means that everything change agents do to minimize the level of turbulence, increase the productive flow of energy, and decrease the energy needed to adapt for those involved in change without compromising the effectiveness of the change initiative, raises resilience.

Here’s a list of some of the things that come to mind, with questions to think about for your current project:

Minimize the Level of Turbulence

• Evaluate the level of disruption the change is introducing. What elements of the change are most disruptive to the people involved? Is there a way to reduce the level of disruption without compromising the goals of the change?
• Provide as much direct control as possible. Lack of control is one if the key contributors to disruption. Are there areas where people can have options/choices?  How can we involve them in shaping the direction of the change?
• Where direct control is not possible, help people establish accurate expectations (indirect control). Are we communicating clearly, accurately, and honestly what will happen, when, and to whom? Are we trying to artificially protect people from disruption by withholding information?

Increase the Productive Flow of Energy

• Pay attention to the flow of energy. It’s intangible, and can’t easily be quantified, but it can be sensed. Where are we seeing enthusiasm? Momentum? Engagement? Where does energy seem low?
• Tap into individual discretionary energy. When individuals see a path to achieving personally important outcomes (growth, learning, serving a higher purpose, etc.), they can contribute almost unlimited amounts of energy to initiatives that also benefit the organization. Do we understand what outcomes are important to individuals? Can we help them achieve these goals while helping the organization succeed?
• Identify things that are impeding the flow. I like the theory of constraints as a mental model here: Imagine energy as water flowing through a hose. The flow will always be limited (constrained) by blockages, leaks, or narrow places in the hose. Rather than trying to find and fix them all at once, we need to figure out which one is biggest issue, address it, and then look for the next one. What’s our biggest energy blockage or leakage right now? If we could change one thing right now (an unsupportive leader, a lack of resources, etc.) to address this issue, what would it be?

Decrease the Energy Needed to Adapt

When we consciously take each of the personal resilience characteristics (described in more detail in the first article) into account in planning and executing the change, we help each individual engage their change muscles most effectively. In each area, I’ve included one or two sample questions for reflection; I invite you to create and share others as well.

• Positive: The World—Are we viewing and communicating the change, and the reasons for executing it, purely in terms of problems and dangers, or are we seeing and sharing the hope, possibilities, and opportunities that are also present?
• Positive: Yourself—Are we effectively aligning the talents and skills of individuals with the demands of the initiative? Are we helping people see where they have contributions to make?
• Focused—Are we clear about where this change fits within the organization’s overall set of priorities? Are we communicating these priorities to everyone involved so they can align their energy accordingly?
• Flexible: Thoughts—Are we getting out of our own habitual ways of thinking about things? Are we including time and space for people to participate in innovation, creativity, and playfulness as we identify new approaches and solutions?
• Flexible: Social—Are we using collaboration and teams effectively? Are we making it safe for people to ask for support and help from others?
• Organized—Are we creating clear processes and structures to guide us and others through uncertainty? Is everyone clear about what these are and how to use them?
• Proactive—Are we encouraging experimentation and risk-taking? Are we allowing people to learn from mistakes as they move out of their comfort zone and into new ways of operating?

One last thought: I have seen many project teams focus most of their attention on the team itself and the work it is doing while spending far too little time on the people throughout the organization who must shift their mindsets and behaviors to operate in the new environment. It’s certainly important for the team to maintain and enhance its own resilience, because the demands of project execution can be high. But it’s also essential to pay attention to the resilience of the participants/targets/contributors in the change, including leaders at all levels. Their energy is required to achieve sustained success.

I’d love to hear other ideas about how you support resilience through your actions as a leader. You can find me on Twitter, on my blog, or on email.

Labeling them as resistant won’t help either. Unfortunately this is what organizational change practitioners do all the time. A survery, an index, a type, etc. and the victim is safely positioned in a category. No need to mention that we have the perfect remedy for every category. But guess what: this system is broken.

We need a different conversation. One that gets our attention off the person and on the journey they are stuggling with.

Four stories

1. Jolene
Jolene is a five year old proud girl who desperately wants to dive into the swimming pool. Mom and dad are in the water so everything is safe. She just wants to jump and have fun like her younger brother is doing but she is held back by her own  fear. The fear is driving her nuts. The more mom and dad insist on helping her, the angrier she gets. Finally, she bursts out in tears because she’s no longer able to contain the emotions of anger and fear. She’s just too afraid of this rollercoaster of feelings. Mom and dad are puzzled by the five year old shouting at them in anger.

2. Daryl
Daryl is a sixty-five year old change management guru who desperately wants to wear lenses. He knows that changing from glasses to lenses requires a period of adaptation and new learning. And that’s what’s holding him back. Like Jolene, he desperately wants to be at his destination. Life would be so much easier. His wife is silenced by his procrastination each time she mentions the topic. He is convinced for 200%. Yet, the journey is holding him back.

3. Patrick
Patrick is a forty-five year old CIO who is longing for a stable IT landscape that keeps him out of disaster-recovery mode. It’s no rocket science that the HR systems landscape needs to be reengineered completely from scratch. It was designed to cater for completely different needs, because the company was half the size it is today. Resources are not holding him back. Budget is not the problem. His department is puzzled by his hesitation to go forward. The journey is holding him back.

4. Jane
Jane, a 40 year old mother is considering a serious diet because during the wintertime she has gained some pounds. She desperately wants to lose some weight, eat healthier, do more sports. She’s been there several times. She’s got a library of diets that she followed, but each spring she’s staring at that mountain to climb. Her husband is puzzled by her obnoxious answers whenever he tries to help her. The destination is not frightening her. The journey is.

The Label is the Problem

Call it resistance, call it sabotage or anything else for that matter. The label we give it is not the issue here.

Or wait. Maybe it is.

By labeling these people as resistant we automatically open up a box of remedies to apply like doctor on a patient, like a teacher on a student or like a parent on a child. And this is precisely the last thing that all four of them need: a rescuer who pushes them into a victim role. ‘Here, let me cure that for you’. ‘Wait, stop that and do this instead’.

These people are intelligent, committed and they are living a balanced life. The first thing they need is someone who acknowledges that it is the journey that causes them to stagnate and that pushing harder is not the solution.

Stop focusing on the people. Stop labeling them. Stop healing them. Instead: focus on the journey.

Flylady to the Rescue

This is exactly what the Heath brothers talk about in their 2010 book Switch. The authors use the analogy of an elephant and its rider. The rider represents the rational and logical. The elephant, on the other hand, represents our emotions, our gut response. They are two parts of the human mind and the premise of the book is that change management initiatives need to address both rider and elephant in order to change.

When it comes to motivating ‘the elephant’, Chip and Dan Heath advise to shrink the change and to adopt the Flylady strategy. The Flylady is a coach to thousands of families to get rid of chaos. She defines CHAOS as “Can’t Have Anyone Over Syndrome”. If your home is such a wreck that just the thought of an unexpected visitor gets you hyperventilating the Flylady can help you. She has a system to bring back peace to your home – one baby step at a time.

Her secret? She resists the temptation of setting up enormous plans and complex methods.

She knows that a solution that is as complex as the problem will not work. Instead, she goes for simple routines that get rid of clutter and put your home and life back in order. It all starts with a shiny sink. Next are the daily and weekly routines and a control journal. Baby-steps is the key word here. As the Heath brothers state:

When people are paralyzed and overwhelmed by a problem, the last thing they need is a solution that is as big and as complex as the problem.

Regardless of the magnitude of the problem, the key to get the elephant moving is to shrink the change. Therefore the advice of the Flylady is simple: ‘5-minute room rescue’, ‘Drink your water’, ‘Don’t obsess, set your timer for 10 minutes for each task, then QUIT!’. And at the end of the day you have real progress.

Let’s try to have a ‘shrinking the journey’conversation with Jolene, Daryl, Patrick and Jane; instead of telling them in what category they belong and what instructions they should follow.

_______
Cartoon used with permission by Dave Walker.
Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.

Some time ago I overheard a conversation between consultants who were talking about how difficult it was to make progress with their customer. One of them said: “The only difference between a consultant and a prostitute is that the prostitute sometimes says no.” At first that was funny; but the more I came to think of it, I realized that this statement is painfully close to the truth.

Everyday I see consultants showing up and running on automatic pilot. In fact, that is how I started my career as a consultant, before I decided to go the road less traveled. Now, on certain occasions I do say ‘no’ and I have to sit with the stigmatizing guilt for some time. But when I say ‘yes’ I mean it.

The Choice

For the short timeframe that I am on a project, I receive some authority, mostly by means of a function title, a vague task list, a sense of urgency and a set of deliverables. That’s pretty standard in my world.  But from then on it is up to me to top this package with my individual commitment. The choice is clear:

• I can play safe, stick to the job description, produce impeccable deliverables, and push them into the lap of my customer. I am now in the position of being right and calling the customer ‘stupid’ when my advice is not followed.
• I can dive in and commit to their commitments. Attention here: boundaries become less obvious, influence happens without authority, and the true value of deliverables gets embedded in the relationship.

It’s the difference between being a spectator and being a player. Even though I am an outsider, in this very timeframe I tip over by committing to their commitments. All of a sudden time flies, passion is abundant, and devotion defaults into whatever I am working on.

It’s a relationship thing. Relationships matter. I start thinking: what if I would receive such an advice? How would I react? How does more empathy affect my advice? ‘Them’ becomes ‘us’. Their goals become my goals. I become a local. I am liberated from the attachment to being right. I am in relationship.

The Doughnut Principle

In his 1994 book The Empty Raincoat, Charles Handy introduces the doughnut principle.

Handy compares the work we do to a doughnut and says the core is what is essential. It is the agreed given of a job, or a project: the job description. And the outside of the core is our potential. The potential is variable and you can develop as much or as little of it as you want.

In my world, the outside is the relationship part. The point is that we are responsible for balancing our own doughnut: with a core (a duty) that matches our profession, and an outside that caters for our potential.

The Tragedy of Fitting in

Although the relationship part is less measurable, it is more valuable; both: to the customer and to myself. The tragedy for most consultants is that they are conditioned to comply to explicit measures that have nothing to do with fostering relationships.

Everybody wants to make progress, and from a compensation & benefits point of view, this is best done by complying to the measures. Most of us prefer to push the dimensions of the performance review to the max, that is: focus on the core and forget about the rest.

Who’s to Blame?

The truth is that we get into trouble when we try to measure ‘being in relationship’. The problem is that “getting suspicious of one’s own advice”, “connecting on an emotional level”, “committing without knowing how”, “creating art that matters” can’t measured on a scale from 1 to 10. Even though the values are beyond measures, the nature is subjective and non-linear. If Pavlov could not simulate it with a dog, you might as well forget about it.

Function descriptions, performance evaluations and well defined deliverables set the standard to good performance. Sadly enough, they also limit to our ability to develop the outside of the doughnut. When you are caught in the treadmill of performance evaluations, why on earth would you stand out and follow your heart – knowing that this may dilute the results on your evaluation? You don’t contribute beyond what is measurable. It’s not done.

The Happiness of Standing Out

There is a wonderful quote from Handy’s book that describes the feeling of disillusionment you get from focusing too much on the core of the doughnut:

We were not destined to be empty raincoats, nameless numbers on a payroll, role occupants, the raw material of economics or sociology, statistics in some government report

When reaching that point most consultants either cynically quit or numb themselves into automatic pilot.

However, for those who push through in search of more gratification in their work, they will find it in the outer part: the relationship part. Their gratification will make it easier to see the bigger picture of the contributions they are making. Eventually, their job might turn into a calling. The meaning of work then becomes connection, engagement and commitment.

Pushing is the Path

This is the strange part. It doesn’t just happen like that. In order to get there I have to leave the ‘position’ (i.e. fixed by definition) of a spectator, invisible to the players of the organization and blind to undercurrent; and get involved into the dynamics (i.e. in motion) of the insiders: I declare myself a player in the field.

It’s push, push, push. Like the character of the Muppet Show throwing himself under a taxi in order to catch a ride to the airport. There is no poetry in this move from outsider to insider: it’s a pure and blunt exercise of pushing yourself into the reality of the customer: language, habits, ways of thinking… you name it. You eat the same food and you laugh at the same jokes. You go local. You are local.

The Trust Strip

Pushing links me to the context of the customer to such an extent that I become ‘one of us’. I get connected. My work becomes connected. The leverage is in the relationship. I no longer need authority to have influence. Earlier in this series, Seth Godin called this emotional labor. Doing emotional labor is a blessing for a consultant: within the limited time slot of your assignment you are a allowed to land on the landing strip of people’s trust-airport. You are allowed to contribute the best you’ve got.

This landing slot doesn’t come for free. You need to push through the depressing belly ache that precedes committing to their commitments. To go beyond the nausea that precedes letting go of being right. Pure anxiety. The only thing you want to do is run. Hang in there. The next thing you are likely to experience is something that matters: growing into a customer.

It is funny how we see resistance in other people but we are completely blind to our own. That is because we don’t respond to events as they occur, but to our interpretations of them. One simple question can get us back on track; but it’s a dangerous one: ‘is it true?’.

On a day-to-day basis, we don’t distinguish between events and the interpretations we give them. “The world as it is” and “the way we are” have become inseparable.

Recently I stumbled upon the work of Katie Byron, who discovered that our attempt to find happiness is backward: instead of hopelessly trying to change the world to match our thoughts about how it “should” be, we can question these thoughts and, by meeting reality as it is, experience unimaginable freedom and joy.

She found out that when she believed that something should be different than it is (“My husband should love me more,” “My children should appreciate me”) she suffered, and that when she didn’t believe these thoughts, she felt peace.

Based on that experience she developed what is known as “The Work of Katie Byron”. In the above video you can see Byron in action. Her method looks very strange at first, because she explicitly requests participants to be  judgmental, harsh, childish, and petty. She even designed a Judge-Your- Neighbor Worksheet to write with the spontaneity of a child who is sad, angry, confused, or frightened.

Then, the inquiry starts with four simple questions:

1. Is it true?
2. Can you absolutely know that it‟s true?
3. How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought?
4. Who would you be without the thought?

When we really sit with these questions and let them resonate, we witness that we are the storyteller of our lives, though the projected image of our thoughts.

In Byron’s own words: “What The Work gives us is a way to change the projector— mind—rather than the projected. It‟s like when there‟s a piece of lint on a projector‟s lens. We think there‟s a flaw on the screen, and we try to change this person and that person, whomever the flaw appears to be on next. But it‟s futile to try to change the projected images. Once we realize where the lint is, we can clear the lens itself. This is the end of suffering, and the beginning of a little joy in paradise.”

I get very suspicious whenever I see advertisements for consulting companies or training courses claiming they will help you to reduce or avoid resistance. They create the false expectation that organizational change is a mathematical exercise.

Emotions are the Only Way Out

They avoid to make sense of the emotional responses. Instead of seeing them for the fuel and energy they provide, they mistake them for a failure. Then, they move in the opposite direction, as if they were reading a road sign upside down.

Here is what that road sign says: resistance is emotion; and emotion is the ‘motion’ that is needed to move through the dip of change. Of course it is a bumpy road, but it is the only way through.

Lateral Thinking as an Example

One example to go forward is by looking at these reactions like Edward De Bono approaches creativity. De Bono discovered that logical, linear and critical thinking has limitations. It is primarily concerned with judging and seeking errors. He calls this black hat thinking. The problem is that it scares us so much that we want to move away from it. But the opposite it true.

De Bono’s approach is to appreciate the value of this negative thinking, instead of avoiding it. Next, he stimulates the other thinking hats to come to the surface. As a result of respecting the negative thinking and going through, one ends up with a rich palate fueling a solution for the situation at hand:

• Negative judgment (black hat) – logic applied to identifying flaws or barriers, seeking mismatch
• Neutrality (white hat) – considering purely what information is available, what are the facts?
• Feeling (red hat) – instinctive gut reaction or statements of emotional feeling (without justification)
• Positive Judgment (yellow hat) – logic applied to identifying benefits, seeking harmony
• Creative thinking (green hat) – provocation and investigation, seeing where a thought goes
• Process control (blue hat) – thinking about thinking

The bottom line is that we need to go through the roller-coaster of our own emotions in order to have the respect and authority to lead others through the organizational change.

The Math Versus The Path

The mathematical or linear approach assumes a straight line from the present state to the future state. This line is best described as ‘Analyze – Think – Change’.

Inevitably emotional side tips us and our beliefs into the cycle of change as described by Elisabeth Kübler Ross. Turns out that in times of change motivation is more important than math.

The nature of things is ‘See – Feel – Change’. The feel part, according to Kübler Ross is a rollercoaster taking us through the dip of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Trying to avoid those emotions is like cooking without heat: ingredients won’t fuse.

Bear with me, because ‘Mr. Communication’ is about to reveal a true story and it isn’t a schoolbook example.

Earlier last week I made it clear to Peter (not his real name) that I was not comfortable with the teasers he was sending me regarding our next teambuilding activity. It seemed to me that he was transforming our original plan of visiting a religious sanctuary into a murderer game by asking me to bring mysterious attributes and solving weird questions.

The Panic

Last time I was asked to do weird things like that was during a two year intensive course on transactional analysis involving the deeper levels of group therapy. I was not up for that and this went way beyond our original plan. What was this guy up to? All of my sensors went in red alert.

So I decided to ask him. Or rather: tell him. Because after a night of sleep – during which I could reiterate the panic and wind up some more – I decided to put it all in an email. Yep. An email.

The Solution – Or So I Thought

And it felt better. The panic was out of my system. I could breathe better and the fact that I twisted in some Monday-morning-blues and rush-of-the-workweek didn’t bother me. A bit of slam-poetry can only make things clearer.

I ended the email with the words: “Not with me and not now! And now up to you!“, convinced that he would be as tolerant and feel as light-hearted about it as I did AFTER hitting the Send button.

The Wakeup Mail

Days went by and I even forgot about the email. Until I checked the mailbox one night after coming home late, to find a crushed soul at the other end of the digital line. His response ended with: “Not sure I know what this is all about. But if you want to step out that is OK with me”.

Huh? I didn’t mean to do that! And to justify and rationalize my original intent I scrolled down to read my original email and convince myself. O MY GOD. Did I write that? Like that? I am such a jerk. And now it’s almost midnight, so calling is not an option.

The Best Part

Or: ‘Why this is so embarrassing‘

In my own trainings (see slideshow) I teach professionals that email is silver and phone calls are golden.

Truly a golden rule. One you should never forget. Thank you Mr. Communication… Now walk your talk!

Eventually I did call Peter and we straightened things out. I had the chance to acknowledge the damage done; to apologize and to get back to my original intent: simply to ask him what this was leading to.

Fortunately Peter is a few generations more mature than me and he was kind enough to course-correct and accept my apologies. He called me ‘over-assertive’; a very polite way of stating the facts.

My Own Private Refresher Course

I remember one other mail in my Inbox with the title ‘Have an Average Day’ – by Michael Neill, a remarkable coach I have been following for quite some years. I also remember thrashing that email with the same rush-of-the-workweek adrenalin that I was going to put into my email to Peter.

Now I know that I should have taken that advice and to take the day off from striving and struggling for success – and have a wonderfully average day instead…

Here is how I could have translated that advice instantly: Exceptional emails are silver, but average phone calls are golden.
______________
Related article: Some Mails are Better Never Sent – November 29th, 2007

Godin makes a clear distinction between three behaviors and ranks them according the degree of difficulty from easy to truly difficult. the following is directly quoted from his book:

“The easiest thing is to react.
The second easiest thing is to respond.
But the hardest thing is to initiate.

Reacting, as Zig Ziglar has said, is what your body does when you take the wrong kind of medicine. Reacting is what politicians do all the time. Reacting is intuitive and instinctive and usually dangerous. Managers react.

Responding is a much better alternative. You respond to external stimuli with thoughtful action. Organizations respond to competitive threats. Individuals respond to colleagues or to opportunities. Response is always better than reaction. But both pale in comparison to initiative.

Initiating is really and truly difficult, and that’s what leaders do. They see something others are ignoring and they jump on it. They cause the events that others have to react to. They make change.”

It reminded me of the three ways to disagree, a blog article I posted in August 2007. It included the below drawing which – in retrospect – confirms Godin’s statement.

Back then, I noticed that behavior 1 and 3 produce good meeting results because they are straightforward and direct. Conversely, the second way to disagree is what Godin refers to as ‘sheepwalking’ in the same book.

In conclusion: understanding organizational change management doesn’t take master minds or rocket science: if you can count to three, you’re in! But it takes guts: our domain benefits from simple people with drive and common sense.