Archive for category: Uncategorized

a thread through September – on being oneself…

I noticed a thread through my September conversations – I wonder if this will speak to you – I”ll post this on linkedin.com, tag you and then figure out what questions to ask… later. Let me know what thoughts you have, maybe easier over on linkedin.com

Check out The art of being yourself by Caroline McHugh – I’ve placed a link on this page – scroll to the bottom… http://shiftchange.net/resources/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veEQQ-N9xWU

Turns out…the quirky authentic you is the one we want to know – and the one who can be the most help – with both individual and organizational challenges.

asking vs. telling: the impact of humble inquiry on getting things done

Situation – We are all on a continuum as to what we value more in an interaction – are we more task-focused, or relationship focused?  Culturally, North Americans are said to be more task-focused: What can you do for me to help me achieve my task? Have you noticed the side order of remembering to smile to grease the wheels during task-accomplishment?  ‘Nuff said.  At the other extreme, one can prioritize developing and deepening an inter-personal relationship – we feel good, but did anything get done?

Target:  The funny thing is… in the long term, we get more stuff accomplished when working with people who are interested in knowing us, who care about us as people, not just as instruments for their own goals.

Proposal:  Read/listen to “Humble Inquiry” by Edgar Schein.  He describes how we can be collectively more effective at getting stuff done by engaging in humble inquiry, and bucking the expectations of behavior based on power and status.  We have seriously robust and constraining social judgements around asking questions and telling people what to do.  What does this look like? People with lower status/power are expected to ask the questions, while those with higher status/power are expected to tell and direct people what to do – heaven help us when we buck the trend!  Ed Schein helps me see how and why I need to buck the trend.  This is a long game for me – getting stuff done AND developing respectful collaborative relationships in the process.

Next Steps:  Pause my  swirling about in our cult of “busy-ness”.  Consider that I actually all know this, but fail to defend my  investments of time, vulnerability and effort in relationships – calling them “nice to haves”.  Read/listen to “Humble Inquiry” by Edgar Schein using the services of the fantastic Toronto Public Library – again. Talk about the potential of humble inquiry with others.

Thinking about an excerpt from “The Neurotic Behaviour of Organizations”

I hope to learn to serve my organizational clients better in their goals of organizational change and improvement.  I am curious as to what acquiring a deep understanding of “being in relationship” might mean for me and my client’s contributions to project teams and interdependent work relationships.

This excerpt inspires me to learn how to best apply these principles to helping people (and collections of people, called organizations!) improve:

“In 1987 Uri Merry and George Brown published The Neurotic Behavior of Organizations, in which they apply the principles of Gestalt therapy to the practice of assessing organizational effectiveness.  Most of the book focuses on specific aspects of organizational dysfunction, but the final chapter, “Using Gestalt in Organizations,” provides an overview of their methodology:

It appears to be possible to develop organizational change approaches and technologies by creating organizational-level analogies from Gestalt therapy… From a Gestalt therapy approach, there are the following reservations about the usual diagnostic process: (1) overemphasis on the past and cause-effect relationships in contrast to what is happening in the here and now; (2) overemphasis on a rational analytic model that restricts awareness; (3) overemphasis on intellectual understanding before moving into action; (4) too little use of participant observation and unobtrusive measures in collecting data; (5) a focus on illness rather than health.

The Gestalt therapy approach differs from the usual diagnostic mode in a number of ways: (1) Diagnosis and intervention are intertwined.  Diagnosis is not seen as a separate step prior to intervention. (2) There is an emphasis on gaining the client’s trust more than on collecting a substantial amount of information. (3) The consultant’s sensations, feelings and internal states are seen as important data. (4) The responsibility for the diagnosis is not taken from the client…

A Gestalt therapy approach to management development has been explicated and empirically tried out in a number of organizations… This approach to authentic management differs from the usual human relations approach on these features: (1) a focus on recognition and mobilization of the individual’s strength and powers; (2) a sharpened awareness of what the individual does and how; (3) an intensification of dramatization of “problem behavior” until a change of relationship takes place; (4) consideration of aggressiveness and conflict as valued vitalizing forces; (5) an emphasis on the individual’s own feedback; (6) an emphasis on strengthening the person’s competence and autonomy; (7) acknowledgment of the importance of increasing awareness of present behavior and completing it; (8) keeping values up front even when this means less disclosure; (9) an emphasis on increasing the individual’s competence; (10) involvement of the consultant as a participant, a director, and an activist…

When we speak of using Gestalt therapy with organizations or at the organization level, the fact remains that we ultimately are going to be using this approach with individuals or groups of individuals.

Source: http://www.edbatista.com/2009/01/gestalt-coaching.html

Let’s bust some myths!

I sat down with Michelle Ransom this past week for the second in a series of conversations with a Change Management Executive from the Watershed CI team. I think that you’ll find the insights and personal thoughts from Michelle, on the subject of Change Management, to be both thought provoking and enlightening.

So, with cup of coffee in hand and a break in Michelle’s very busy schedule, it is once again my pleasure to present to you an excerpt from our conversation.

PGG: Michelle, first and foremost, thank you very much for taking the time to sit with me;

I know that the audience is equally appreciative of the opportunity to hear from someone like yourself who, as a seasoned Change Practitioner, has experienced all kinds of situations in your efforts to help numerous clients with their transformational initiatives. Can I start by asking you: Why do organizations tend to resist change?

MR: I’m not convinced they do. In fact, this phrasing of “resisting change” has inadvertently set up the expectation of resistance and conflict, with the potential of creating a negative self-fulfilling prophecy. People do not resist changethey resist being changed. If people resisted change, I’m not sure that Apple would have sold quite so many gadgets, do you?

PGG: I must say Michelle, I love your spin on that question, and there’s lots of experiential evidence available that supports your point. I’m personally a believer that people, in fact, support the change they help to create, and I agree with you on your Apple analogy. Moving on, I think that many organizations are slow to buy in on the need for change, and I’m wondering what your thoughts are on: How you sell change to an organization?

MR: Let’s back up a step. Organizations are simply groups of people, small or large, right? We should think about participating in change, rather than selling change. How about we ask just one person at a time to make a change – for example, about breakfast. What if we ask someone to change from eating cereal in the morning, to eating toast? What would be the first thing you’d say?

Yes, you’re right. We would start with “why” a la Simon Sinek, https://youtu.be/sioZd3AxmnE and explain our rationale. We then would invite two-way communication – asking what the person thinks and feels about this proposed change, and respond to their perspective and insights. If we don’t ask, we won’t be able to co-create the best way forward, in concert with the people we are inviting to the change. Yes, some change will be mandatory – even then, we know that we get the best results when engaging others with respect and participation. We can make change stick when we see ourselves as partners with shared accountability for change.

PGG: I love that you referenced my most favourite TED Talk with Simon Sinek, and I appreciate the detailed response. I’m a huge fan of Simon, as well as partnering and collaboration as a way to achieve great results. If I may, I’d like to stay on the subject of engaging and communicating with people by asking you: How do you ensure that all stakeholders are informed at each step of the change management process?

MR: We can’t. Here’s where we really learn that “you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink”. The good news is there are at least three things we can do: a) We can identify stakeholders who are impacted or who can impact our project; b) we can build structures for these groups to have meaningful two-way communication; and c) we can be clear about what the anticipated impacts are for each stakeholder, as best we can. I’ve seen successful cooperation and knowledge-sharing on social media platforms (e.g. Yammer), with newsletters/blog/podcasts, town hall meetings, steering committee meetings, webinars and interactive workshops. I’m sure there are more ways that have been successful for others. It comes back to communicating shared accountability for change, encouraging people to seek out what they need to learn about the future state, letting the change team know if they need anything more to be ready – and feel ready.

PGG: Thanks for that Michelle, and it’s clear that Communicate, Communicate, Communicate, sits as soundly in your approach as it does with that of your peer, Dana Bellman, whom I had the pleasure of speaking with two weeks ago. It’s great to witness the alignment around this subject matter. Now, I won’t keep you much longer as I know that you need to run, and so my final question is: How do you ensure that a change is transparent fully across an organization?

MR: I smell an assumption here. We need to confirm that transparency is a value that the organization’s leaders have for the change initiative. If yes, then we need to start with the leaders demonstrating, through their own communication and behavior, that transparency is the expected and desired way of communicating. Leaders need to make it safe for others to be transparent without fear.

I might suggest here: “Be careful what you wish for”, in that transparency may not serve the initiative. There are many good reasons that a change initiative might be measured and cautious with communications. It may serve to be “transparent” AND private at the same time. We can be open and transparent about the process of making business decisions, without having to know the final answers and the final impacts. Sometimes we shouldn’t see how the sausage is made – it can create confusion, uncertainty, and many requests to change the recipe. Although it opens us up to the criticism of “not being transparent”, it can be wise to wait for key decisions to be made collaboratively with the critical stakeholders. We can then calmly help people (from all stakeholder groups) to get ready for the change when we know what we’re dealing with.

PGG: Well I must say that wasn’t quite what I was expecting, but nevertheless a point very well made, Michelle. I, for one, thoroughly appreciated your response, as I’m sure that there are many of our audience who would line up with you too. Thanks very much for your time Michelle and for a most enjoyable conversation.

Michelle is currently engaged with one of Canada’s largest power companies, working on building out the Strategic Change Management Plan, where I’m positive some of the points made by her in this interview will be of real value.

Michelle Ransom, B.Comm, MSc Organizational Psychology, Lean Six Sigma Green Belt (CLSSGB) 

Michelle is a pragmatic professional with more than 15 years’ experience in financial services, healthcare, government, and energy. Aligning improvement projects with strategy, she has led projects with budgets up to $6M, 30 team members, impacting 1000+ employees, with durations up to 2 years. She has developed a reputation for high work standards, creativity, approachability and making change stick. Michelle founded Shift Change LLC to continue to provide operational improvement and organizational change consulting services. She is also the founder of Ideacircle, a non-virtual community of practice (and blog), sharing experiences to improve organizational outcomes.

As a Patient Consultant to the Advisory Team of a multidisciplinary team, Michelle has designed and tested iterations of the hospital discharge form to inform patients and care-givers of after- hospital treatment to reduce re-admittance and improve outcomes. She has coached health insurance company CEO, COO and Chief HR to launch initial organizational change strategy, focusing on leadership development, metrics, job fit and self-guided communication teams. Michelle has secured start-up and ongoing funding to launch a new health-technology research group at the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery