How do we deal with resistance to change during this transition? - part #1

A lot of people are struggling right now with burnout. They have been pushing so hard since the start of the pandemic and do not see an end in sight. They are worn to the core and thus resistant to doing more with so much less.

From my perspective, this level of burn-out is the outcome of a problem, namely a reaction to prolonged stress. I also think the actual problem is that people are feeling overwhelmed by too many inputs and too many demands. They are constantly trying to  process all that is happening around and within them. 

As a client shared with me not too long, people are hitting their “surge capacity.” The minute she used this term I had huge “aha”moment. It was like a major light bulb had illuminated a whole new perspective for me.

Given the impact of this global pathogen, and the resulting levels of anxiety and uncertainty, we have a low tolerance for change. First, our pandemic fatigue has turned into decision fatigue. Second,  as John O’Donohue pointed out, “our trust in the future has lost its innocence. We now know that anything can happen from one minute to the next….. Politics, religion and economics and the institutions of family and community all have become abruptly unsure.” Third, we are suffering from the “CNN Effect” , namely the breathless, twenty-four hour media coverage makes it considerably harder for leaders to be anything but reactive. As Ryan Holiday notes in his book, Stillness Is The Key (Portfolio/Penguin, 2019, “… it’s very difficult to think or act clearly (to say nothing of being happy) when we are drowning in information…. We have stopped doing the following: Ask yourself at every moment, “Is this necessary?”…. We have not been in charge of our own information diet.”

For me, surge capacity is our ability to manage a sudden influx of inputs or problems that exceed our normal operating capacity. As leaders, we do not like to sit with this discomfort and be present to ambiguity. We like order and control. However, as we move forward each of us are going to have to improve our surge competencies, i.e. a person’s knowledge and the required skills they need to have in order to meet the specific role requirements related to handling a surge, and the surge capabilities within our organizations, I.e. the collective abilities of a team or company to move from normal operations to a new level of operations in order to meet an increase in volume that exceeds normal operating capacity.

This week, reflect on the concept of surge capacity and figure out what new surge competencies you need to master and what new surge capabilities your organization needs to get batter at during the coming months. The future will continue to be more complicated and complex during the coming years.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

How do we generate successful teamwork during this transition? - part #3

One element of creating successful teams at this time period is to engage in scenario based planning or pre-mortems. When I teach the From Vision to Action Leadership Training, I remind students that the best leaders are scouts, namely they explore an idea in order to obtain key information or perspective. As many have learned, the higher you go in an organization, the more you need to think rather than simply do. Thus, the concept of being a scout is not the physical act of scouting as much as the cognitive act of scouting, namely guiding a process whereby the company "explores" a strategic idea or concept in order to learn key information about how people are thinking and perceiving what is going on currently or possibly in the near future. 

Years ago, I facilitated a morning long discussion about a possible scenario based on Congress making a series of choices related to funding non-profits and how the organization would respond both strategically and operationally. In the following year, Congress did not make all of the choices discussed but close to many of them. The outcome was that the organization handled it just fine. Folks were uncomfortable but they had already walked through it mentally. Therefore, they could handle it better.

Another way of doing this is to do a pre-mortem instead of a postmortem. The goal of a postmortem or after action report is to understand the cause of a past failure or success and the lessons learned. “In a pre-mortem, you imagine a future failure and then explain the cause,“ writes Jack B. Soll, Katherine L. Milkman, and John W. Payne in their article called “Outsmart Your Own Biases” in the May 2015 issue of the Harvard Business Review. This technique, also called prospective hindsight, helps you identify potential problems that ordinary foresight won’t bring to mind. The benefits of this kind of work is that it tempers optimism. We tend to over-estimate the benefits and under-estimate the effort needed to get something done. It also encourages a more realistic assessment of risk and helps prepare back-up plans and exit strategies.

As we do this level of work, we need to be very clear about what we mean by the word “team”. In all of our busy days during 2020 and the global pandemic, we forgot some things, namely that “… local experiences… are significantly more important than company ones.” This insight comes from  Marcus Buckingham, Marcus and Ashley Goodall in their book, Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World, Harvard Business Review Press, 2019. As they note, the truth is that people care which team they are on and that teams help us see where to focus and what to do. The big thing is that only on a team can we express our individuality at work and put it to highest use.

This week, ponder the following insight by Donald Miller: “Behind every successful person, there is one elementary truth. Somewhere, some way, someone cared about their growth.” Then, go out into life and be that kind of person.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

How do we generate successful teamwork during this transition? - part #2

When we want to generate successful teamwork during this transition from a global pandemic, leaders need to understand the signal to noise ratio. This is defined as the measure of how much useful information there is in a system in proportion to that of interference. 

Right now, there is more noise in the environment than normal and we don’t hear or see the signal or signals that we need to pay attention to make the right decisions. Furthermore, all the signals coming in are weak and overlapping. Thus, we as leaders struggle to discern the difference between signal and noise.

Given all that happened in 2020, and in the first quarter of 2021, we are worn thin as we move toward a post pandemic period. We have little tolerance level for the chaotic, i.e. noise, and we are not sure what signal we are receiving. For that matter, we are somewhat unclear about what signal to send out to others. Some think the key message right now is to grow the business and make more profit. While this seems logical on one hand, it also seems impractical on another hand. 

First, we do not know how to manage all the losses that happened in 2020 and in the 1Q of 2021. We recognize “what people resist is not change, but loss” notes Ron Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky in their book, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, Harvard Business Press, 2009. The common factor generating adaptive failure is resistance to loss.

So, what do we do?

Right now, when dealing with the feeling of chaos, we are defaulting to technical leadership behaviors in order to restore order and protect self over team. However, Heifetz, Grashow and Linsky in the aforementioned book note that adaptive challenges require leaders to first identify the challenge rather than to simply focus on fixing the problem. These kinds of situations are disorienting and thus a leader needs to remember that adaptive problems challenge norms and current ways of thinking. Rather than focusing on restoring order, a leader may need to be uncomfortable with letting problems emerge so all involved can deal with the full scope of what is happening. This may not be easy but it is important.

Next, these leaders need to schedule regular opportunities for the team to evaluate how the team is working, not just what the team is doing. Currently, many strategic reviews are focused on what we are getting done or not getting done. Few of them are focused on how well the team is or is not working together.

After a year like 2020, some are still feeling consumed by our losses, and one of those losses is the loss of our ability to zoom out before you zoom in, referencing the work of Jim Collins and Morten Hansen in their book, Great By Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck - Why Some Thrive Despite Them All, HarperCollins, 2011. As they explain, when you zoom out, it is to sense a change in conditions and assess the time frame. The key question is the following: How much time before the risk profile changes? When we assess with rigor, we then need to ask the next question: Do the new conditions call for disrupting plans? If so, how? Once we have done this level of work, then we zoom in and focus on the execution of the plan. 

From my perspective, I think the leaders who become focused on establishing order and control are feeling vulnerable and afraid of being judged by others. Therefore, they define the feeling of uncertainty, loss, being overwhelmed and struggling as a sign of weakness. 

Yet, the challenge is to recognize that the outer choices really reflect, an inner feeling of chaos. It is not what is happening on the outside. It is what is happening on the inside. Therefore, the leader establishes order and control over everything and everyone around them. This creates the appearance of stability and order, namely “I am a leader, I am in charge, and I’ve got this.” Furthermore, when feeling pushed, they push back harder. It works to a point, but it also does not work. Over time, people around them feel disempowered and disrespected.

As leaders, we need to learn how to live with the feeling of vulnerability. We need to sit with discomfort and ambiguity. We need to learn new and better ways to deal with uncertainty, risk, and emotional vulnerability.

Remember: “If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.”Asserting control over everything and everyone around us is not a viable way to move forward, even if it gives the false impression that we are “leading our people.”

This week, check your signal to noise ratio and choose respectful pathways to empower people to deal with the current emerging challenges before all of us.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

How do we generate successful teamwork during this transition? - part #1

When the From Vision to Action Leadership Training takes place in person rather than on the Zoom platform because of a global pandemic, we play a game with legos that students have called “The Great Lego Game.” In simple terms, it revolves around receiving instructions of what to build, e.g. a race car, and then getting all of the pieces together and building it.

I first played a version of The Great Lego Game in graduate school in the mid-80’s. We used Lincoln Logs rather than legos. Since I was an older student who had grown up with Lincoln Logs, it was great fun to build the structure. In the graduate school version, we played the entire game with people in different rooms. I remember that it involved lots of running between rooms. When we were all done and had debriefed, I thought to myself, I could modify that game and make it so much better with legos.

So, I redesigned it, tested it out with numerous groups and we played it for the first time in 1998 in the First From Vision to Action Leadership Training. The success of the new exercise exceed my expectations. People talked about it throughout the entire class and during the following years. It was a mirror and a window into leadership and team dynamics. I don’t know who came up with the phase “post traumatic lego disorder” but it has become a common phase over the course of 22 years.

In March 2020, just before COVID impacted all of our lives. the 2020 From Vision to Action Leadership Training played The Great Lego Game. It was a classic game with the usual leadership mistakes and team challenges. In 2020, I did not make the plans and the pieces complicated. Everyone had everything they needed in order to be successful and to build the model.

A typical game goes as follows. Everyone in the group reads the job descriptions for the game and most think they are the rules of the game which they are not. Everyone figures out who is going to do which jobs but does not check on people’s strengths or talents. At this point, most do not stop and look at the plans together. Instead, they rush ahead and start putting together the legos. What follows is chaotic action with minimal success.

Ideally, the leader recognizes that the way they are organized to build the lego model (think TO or organizational structure) and the systems to build it are not viable. Then, they should call a team meeting, restructure the team, redesign the system to execute the plan, start over and build the model. However, what typically happens is that people in leadership positions become target focus on building the model and operationally consumed. And thus they become the hub for everything.

But why does this happen?

First, they choose, consciously or unconsciously, to not zoom out and see the whole. Thus they do not see the problems within the structure and the system because all of their attention is focused on doing things operationally.

Next, they focus on results and order over promoting innovation or thinking strategically. No matter what, they want that round peg to fit into that square hole. This happens in part because promoting innovation would question the status quo and encourage new ways of thinking and working together.

Third, the messier and more chaotic things get in the game, the harder these leaders push to get the model built. And the more they try to make it orderly, the outcome is more disorderly. Therefore, they put controlling the work space over the option of changing the work space as their primary focus.

As I observed this all happen, I realized that many leaders can not zoom out and see what is happening because they feel like there is not enough time to zoom out. They do not give themselves or their team time, space or permission to do this individual or group work. There is no strategic review or pause to ask if it is working well. Furthermore, their complete attention is on getting the operations “right.” They do not give themselves permission to pause, step back and ask the questions: Is this working? Is this the right way to do this?”

The outcome of not doing this level of work results in a series of cascading mistakes and cascading defaults. As Margaret Wheatley reminds us, “When confronted with an unknown, we always default to a known.” Each default action creates more mistakes. One choice leads to a default which leads to another default. As Jim Collins in his book, How The Mighty Fall and Why Some Companies Never Give In (HarperCollins, 2009), writes, “I’ve come to see institutional decline like a staged disease: harder to detect but easier to cure in the early stages, easier to detect but harder to cure in the later stages. An institution can look strong on the outside but already be sick on the inside, dangerously on the cusp of a precipitous fall.” He notes that his research indicates that organizational decline is largely self-inflicted, and recovery is mostly within our own control

In short, people in leadership positions made a choice. They defaulted to order and stability over leading or communicating. Leadership defaulted to control over command or communicate. It was a choice to establish order and as a result stability. The people in leadership positions had hit their tolerance level for disorder and chaos. 

The typical goal of command and control is to get something done and then things will return to status quo. Typically it is focused on lowering that which has caused a level of disequilibrium and chaos within the organization. The leader makes this choice because they “feel” like they have lost control. I think the challenge right now is that many leaders during this transition time period are feeling like they have lost control, order and ultimately stability. Thus, they are defaulting to action which may make things worse rather than better.

This week, pause and zoom out. Ask yourself the following questions: Is this working? Is this the right way to do this? Then, consciously choose a better path rather than a default course of action.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

How do we create a more resilient organization during this transition from a global pandemic to a post pandemic world? - part #4

Another pathway to becoming more resilient is to analyze your service delivery landscape. Here we try and figure out what are the technical problems and what are the adaptive challenges within it.

As a quick review, technical problems fall within the range of current problem solving expertise. The problem is clearly defined and the known solutions are implemented by current know-how. The key is to apply the right tool or connect the right person with the problem in order to create the right solution.

When it comes to adaptive challenges, the problem will require new perspectives, expertise and solutions. Most of the time defining the problem may require learning and often calls into question fundamental assumptions and beliefs. We solve these kinds of challenges by making changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits and even loyalties. In short adaptive challenges require new ways of thinking. 

From a position of authority, a leader dealing with a technical problem will protect the organization from external threats, maintain norms and restore order. However, with an adaptive challenge, this same leader may expose external threats and the resulting conflict they are causing. They also may challenge norms or let them be challenged. This is uncomfortable for all involved but is one of the steps in changing how people solve the challenge and generate a new way of thinking.

Thus, as a leader analyzes their service delivery landscape, they must create a solution for each technical problem and adaptive challenge. They also do not assume the plan will work as proposed with adaptive challenges. Therefore, they do pre-mortems or a variety of table top exercises assuming that there will be problems as they execute the plan. At the same time, they try and decipher what are the second and third order consequences rather than presuppose that their plan and its solutions will all work.

When our external environment become more and more complex, and our internal organizational capacity can not evolve fast enough to meet these external demands, we could encounter the potential for organizational failure or a major system collapse. The result of this level of collapse is the potential for cultural de-evolution, i.e. a time when we pass on unhealthy cultural behaviors and norms plus create a work environment which promotes and perpetuates these problems. Therefore, we must build the capacity and the systems to become resilient. The future may be unpredictable but I guarantee you it will become more complicated and more complex. Thus resiliency is the right choice moving forward.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257