Introduction
These days, I routinely get asked two questions. First, “what are the patterns you are witnessing as you continue to coach people?” Second, “given these patterns, what should we be doing?” My response to these two, good questions has many layers.
Currently, I am seeing three major patterns surface at the same time. First, stress and anxiety levels are going through the roof, and people are struggling with how to cope with what feels like endless waves of disruptive change. For many, their traditional stress management methods are not working given the magnitude of these unpredictable changes. Therefore, many people are seeking new solutions in order to cope better.
Second, there appears to be a convergence of anger and grief as people attempt to make sense of current events. This is all wrapped up in a level of moral outrage and the feeling of trauma about choices being made. Now, I don’t use the word trauma lightly, but for those, who have experienced PTS/PTSD, this convergence has been triggering. For those who have been historically disenfranchised, this is all deeply troubling. I also believe that the lingering effects of the pandemic are still playing a role in this situation.
Third, the outcome of this convergence of anger and grief is the rise and spreading of fear. At the most basic level, we have become afraid of others. During the pandemic, we focused on social distancing in order to survive. Now, we just focus on distancing ourselves from others. We also have become afraid of making choices that could result in us receiving attention by the larger society. In short, we have become afraid of life in general. And as a result, we have forgotten that goodness still exists in the world, and miracles continue to happen each and every day.
With these three patterns in mind, there are important choices to be made, and a high degree of clarity that needs to be generated based on some common language.
Understand the Difference Between Problems and Challenges
When dealing with these patterns, all involved have to understand the difference between technical problems and adaptive challenges, which are sometimes called adaptive problems. Given current events, we are encountering a tsunami of both, and struggling to stay afloat in the midst of this raging sea.
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), explain the difference between these two kinds of problems. A technical problem is one where the solution falls within the range of current problem solving expertise within the organization. The problem is clearly defined and known solutions are implemented by current know-how. The goal is to connect the right person or tool to the problem in order to create the right solution. In short, the problem can be fixed by applying existing skills, resources, and processes.
An adaptive challenge, or sometimes call an adaptive problem, requires a new perspective, expertise, and solutions, lest the organization declines. Part of the difficulty of this kind of problem is that defining the problem may require learning before the problem is fully defined. It also calls into question fundamental assumptions and beliefs, and can only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits, and loyalties. In short, an adaptive challenge and the subsequent solution requires new ways of thinking.
Building A Holding Environment
Next, I feel we are called to re-explore a concept about building a holding environment first proposed by Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky in their book, Leadership On The Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of Leading (Harvard Business School Press, 2002). To me, it feels like the level of disequilibrium continues to rise at an accelerated rate. In particular, we are not doing a good job of “lowering the temperature” within our organizations, i.e. referencing a metaphor in the book about how to deal with conflict and change, which is often the source of the disequilibrium.
Heifetz and Linsky explain that it is important to “create a holding environment” where those gathered can “contain and adjust the heat that is being generated by addressing difficult issues or wide value differences.” For me, this holding environment can happen within the context of a strategic dialogue. When a safe and respectful sharing environment, i.e. one that acknowledges facts and feelings, is created, then we can acknowledge the losses that are taking place and explore how to respond in a thoughtful manner.
As part of lowering the temperature, Heifetz and Linsky propose the following specific actions. First, “address the technical aspect of the problem,” i.e. use solutions that fall within the range of current problem solving expertise. Second, “establish a structure for the problem-solving process by breaking the problems into parts and creating time frames, decision rules, and clear role assignments.” Third, “temporarily reclaim responsibility for the tough issues.” Fourth, “employ work avoidance mechanisms” in order to not get overwhelmed by trying to solve or fix everything all at the same time. Fifth, “slow down the process of challenging norms and expectations” because change of this magnitude requires leaders to address the emotional elements related to what is happening, not just the technical elements.
Engage In Adaptive Leadership
With the above framework in mind, Heifetz, Grashow and Linsky write that adaptive leadership involves three key activities. First, adaptive leadership involves “observing events and patterns around you” in order to collect data about what is happening. Second, adaptive leadership involves “interpreting what you are observing,” recognizing that “interpretation is only a guess.” Third, adaptive leadership involves designing “interventions based on observations and interpretations to address the adaptive challenges you have identified.”
Now on one level, this all seems self-evident. However, as they explain, “In the realm of adaptive leadership, you have to believe that your intervention is absolutely the right things to do at the moment you commit to it. But at the same time, you need to remain open to the possibility that you are dead wrong.” This is hard to do as a leader and hard for a leadership team to embrace. Yet, it is the right pathway to engaging problems of this nature.
Still, Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky note something very unique about being an adaptive leader. As they write, “… to practice leadership, you need to accept that you are in the business of generating chaos, confusion, and conflict, for yourself and others around you.” Now that is not what most leaders want to hear, or do on a regular basis. However, it comes with the territory. Furthermore, they note that “building up your tolerance for disorder, ambiguity, and tension are particularly important in leading adaptive change.” Recognizing both of these important points, I think this is where effective adaptive leaders engage with an executive coach and a broad network of support in order to handle the normal, but uncomfortable stress, ambiguity, and anxiety that comes with this work.
To be continued on Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment