Hack
Hack: The Judgment Factory: Reverse engineering dangerous judgments in turbulent times
by Anna Stillwell - Co-Founder at Executive Office
July 18, 2011 at 2:06pmContribution Summary
Summary
In turbulent times like a recession or a post-merger integration, the issue of low trust can escalate from a chronic condition to a major flare-up. In a flare-up people imagine the worst, jump to conclusions, and make dangerous judgments. An org practice that helps people reverse engineer their dangerous judgments can help an organization ride the turbulence to a higher level of trust.
Moonshot(s)
Problem
Low levels of trust in many organizations are akin to a chronic condition, and chronic conditions can be much harder to treat than acute ones, because, well, “they are not that bad. It’s not that big of a deal.” So acute flare-ups, as difficult as they are, provide a unique opportunity to treat a chronic condition. And there are plenty of flare-ups. Major changes in organizational context (e.g., recession, new competitors, new regulations, M&A, change in management) often put a particular kind of stress on an organization and feed people’s worst fears.
The period between the announcement of a merger and the end of the first couple of months of the integration process is a perfect litmus test for the level of trust and fear in an organization. While the merging companies are trying to clear regulatory hurdles and get Board approvals, information tends to be scarce. No matter how perfect the integration planning process, it is difficult to plan out every detail and think through every possible angle, especially if you have tens of thousands of people involved. The higher the level of trust, the less time people spend worrying about their future (“I trust my manager to stick his neck out for me.”) The lower the level of trust, the more time people spend worrying about their future role, title, etc., and the rumor mill often kicks into high gear and feeds an underground factory where people use a mix of facts and rumors to manufacture preemptively negative judgments in accordance with their worst fears (“I need to know what’s going on because if I don’t take care of myself, my manager certainly won’t.”) Things can get ugly fast.
Solution
The treatment plan could be as follows: First get initial intel on the judgments manufactured at the judgment factory by simply talking to a representative sample of people across the organization—what do they make of the merger? What are they excited about and why? What are they worried about and why? Organize and share (anonymous) responses with the leadership team. If the level of trust is low enough, the responses will probably be colorful enough to create momentum for action.
The treatment itself could then be framed as introducing a new organizational practice. Call it “the Judgment Factory.” The objective of the practice is to shed the light of awareness on and give people the language and tools to look at how they arrive at their conclusions about each other (“we”) and about what’s going on (“it”). Here is what the practice entails:
- Recognize the output of the Judgment Factory: a judgment!
- Avoid debating the judgment.
- Instead, double click on the raw data. What was the raw data that they are basing their judgment on? What did they see, hear, or experience?
- Double click on the manufacturing process: what did they make out of this raw data?
- Ask: is this the only possible interpretation? Is this a representative sample?
- Send them to the source armed with inquiry.
Judgments are not instrinsically bad. The real issue is that most of us have an unexamined and automatic manufacturing process. It's automated! Hasty judgments based on a poor relationship to the facts and distorted interpretations lead to the the bulk of the problem.
Here is how this practice could look in real life between an employee and his manager. [It makes sense to try the practice out first on the judgments people manufacture about business challenges (“it”) rather than on interpersonal issues (“we”) because to reverse-engineer judgments about each other typically requires a greater level of trust, which is short supply in a low-trust situation.]
Tom (employee who is afraid that the merger will lead to a significant curtailing of his freedom): “Company X is a big machine. Things take forever—it's slow moving, bureaucratic. I’ll just be another cog in the machine.”
Paul (Tom’s manager): We might have a case of the Judgment Factory going on here, Tom. Is now a good time to look at this?
Tom: Yeah, sure.
Paul: Give me some raw data. Explain to me what you saw, heard, or experienced.
Tom: “I had a meeting with my counterpart at company X. I wanted to make a simple decision. He said that he didn’t think the two of us could decide on this by ourselves and that he would have to check in with his boss first. If I’m not empowered to make the simplest decision I used to make all by myself, I will suffocate in that place. That place is so hierarchical. I am out of here.”
Paul: “Ok, I get it, you’re pissed, but let’s slow down. So the data that you heard was that he needed to check with his boss, right?”
Tom: Yeah.
Paul: Ok. Then you interpreted that in a particular way: that he was not empowered to make that decision, right?
Tom: Yes.
Paul: And based on that interpretation you manufactured a judgment: that you will be a cog in the machine if you work for X.
Tom: Yeah, it sounds weird when you say it that way, but that’s true.
Paul: You may be right, he may not be empowered to make that decision and you may become a cog in the machine, but I don’t know that yet. Is your interpretation the only possible interpretation of what happened in that meeting?
Tom: What do you mean?
Paul: Well, is there some other way to interpret the raw data? Is it possible that the guy had some good reasons to want to check with his boss first?
Tom: Oh, I never thought about that. I guess so. Yeah. Ah, well, maybe he just wanted his boss’s opinion. Maybe they collaborate on stuff. I don’t know. I guess it could be a whole lot of things.
Paul: Right. Exactly. It could be a whole lot of things. And even if it is true that he was not empowered to make that decision, should you jump to a judgment about an entire organization based on a single conversation?
Tom: Yeah, that does seem kind of ridiculous now.
Paul: Hey, we all do it. What do you think about going back to this guy and asking him what he meant by his comment and finding out more about how decisions are made around there?
***
So, that’s the basic idea behind reverse-engineering the output from the Judgment Factory. Now, how do you scale it, how do you turn it into an organization-wide practice? In the context of an integration, the Judgment Factory could be introduced to everyone involved in the integration process and to all the leaders whose teams are undergoing the most significant changes. It could then be the leaders’ job to introduce this practice to their teams. Unlike the usual resistance to treating a chronic condition, leaders may be way more likely to pick this practice up and put it to use because without it they don’t have a way to control the inevitable fallout (e.g., major diversion of energy and attention, drop in performance, and talent walking out the door, etc).
Practical Impact
The Judgment Factory is, in essence, a practice for collective reflection. It gives people the language and tools to look into or reverse-engineer the judgments they often hastily manufacture about their circumstances and about each other (sometimes their judgments turn out to be accurate, but most often not). Few bosses are intentionally evil and de-humanizing, although that is exactly what many employees conclude. Few employees are intentionally lazy and initiative-less, although that is exactly what many bosses conclude. Both sides usually have reasons but are rarely aware of what the other side’s reasons are. The Judgment Factory could be used to help an organization treat the acute flare-ups of fear but it could also become a practice that—if carried forward—could help deal with chronic low levels of trust.
Here are some early reports from a clinical trial we’ve conducted to treat an emotionally charged post-merger integration:
- People are using the Judgment Factory to keep cool in an emotionally charged acquisition. People see that they are jumping to conclusions. As one woman said, “I feel like I have a pause and rewind button. I may still decide that company X is not for me, but it won’t be based on some underground Judgment Factory. It will be based on a well-examined choice.”
- People have begun to use The Judgment Factory in other ways—it went viral. Now, when people put forth ideas about how to solve a problem in a team meeting, people don’t always ignore or dismiss an idea that they do not like. Instead people ask questions like, “What is the raw data that you are you basing that idea on? Are you seeing something that I am not seeing?” That means that people are now exchanging a different kind of information: they are exchanging raw data (intel from the field which everyone desperately needs) and what they make out of that intel (which means that they can challenge each others’ assumptions rather than their conclusions), and they tend to avoid the rarely-productive judgment debate.
- Misunderstandings are inevitable in even the best working relationships. They are normal. Instead of misunderstandings dividing people and instilling suspicion, fear, and paranoia, people are using the Judgment Factory to get a reality check on their own private (and often distorted) interpretations, clear the air, uncover new ways of looking at the same issue, and to build stronger relationships. (e.g., "You know you said something the other day in our team meeting that made me a bit angry, and I created this whole story in my head. When I realized what I was doing I thought I would come back to you and just ask, what did you mean when you said that?")
Challenges
Challenges: Sometimes people get annoyed when you ask them questions about their judgments, especially if they are hot under the collar.
Suggested Solution: Sometimes people just need to blow off some steam or cool down before you try to do anything. Let them vent for a while and just listen before you start asking them any questions. The main point being: don’t shove your great new tool down somebody else’s throat. Make sure you have an agreement that now is the time and place to double click on the issue, or find a time that is.
First Steps
On a small scale, anybody can simply launch their own trial of the Judgment Factory.
To stage an organization-wide adoption of the treatment, timing is everything—an imminent flare-up or the early stages of a flare-up are often the perfect time. The steps and the contents of the treatment are described under “Solution.”
Credits
• Inspired by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey (Immunity to Change)
• Judgment Factory design: Executive Office Team
Tags
increase trust, reduce fear
Helpful Materials
Documents:
- No documents at this time
Images:
- No images at this time
Videos:
- No videos at this time
Comments
Anna Stillwell
November 23, 2010 at 11:08pmDan, my friend. Thank you. I will get back in touch with you soon.
Dan Oestreich
November 24, 2010 at 3:27pmI will definitely look forward to that! Best wishes to you.
Gary Cohen
October 16, 2010 at 8:38amAnnie,
It is so interesting that you credit Kegan and Lahey. As you were describing your Hack I began thinking of their work. I also began to reflect on the work of Heifetz at the Kennedy School on adaptive leadership as well as appreciative inquiry.
I love the term Judgment Factory - it really describes the issue perfectly. It has been my experience that using affirming questions can have greater impact when a person unskilled with handling the mind frame of the one who is emotionally charged. I think I get the idea that the training is around making it more concrete rather than the narrative the employee is telling themselves. I am curious if you avoided the questions regarding your worries and concerns and focused more on what are the opportunities you see ahead? How might this present a greater reward for you and your career? When have you been in a similar situation that you had a positive outcome? Using these type of questions to change the narrative to a positive. It is my experience that many people have these narratives to upload in their own experiences and they will not have to go outside to someone else’s story. And the reality of a merger is that regardless of what is real or false, things change fast and false hope is not comforting (meaning trying to make a concrete data point when that may be ignored by the powers that be based on the narrative they are playing). It seems that helping the employee see that the change in the world is constant and it has both effects – so which one can they get focused on.
When you go down the road of the negative and if not handled by the manager well it could spin out of control. Additionally, what if disequilibrium is what the top leadership is looking for – that disharmony is going to create the tension that is needed to make the changes required?
Annie, I only point to the critical in an effort to contribute to the Hack and it is obvious based on the comments and your success what a terrific idea this is and a great contribution to organizational development. Thank you for your willingness to contribute to all of our growth in such a complex issue.
Anna Stillwell
October 21, 2010 at 12:44amHello Gary,
Thanks for dropping by. I didn't experience you as critical at all, no worries. I experience you as trying to help me build something. If I understand you correctly, and I am not sure that I do, we almost didn't need to add the positive questions and here's why: We had injected a practice: the player mindset in this organization many years earlier. (http://www.managementexchange.com/story/player-mindset-everybody-working...)
All employees understood and actively practiced the player mindset. So the Judgment Factory helped people recognize their interpretations and then they would put on the player hat to see what they would do about it.
I need to understand more about what you mean when you say, "Additionally, what if disequilibrium is what the top leadership is looking for – that disharmony is going to create the tension that is needed to make the changes required?" I think that is an interesting angle, but I don't entirely understand what you mean by it. So help me understand before I say too much about it. If the leadership were trying to make changes through discord, I would likely (but not always) try to influence them to find other ways to actualize those changes. Of course, I don't want to sound pollyannish, nor that I am conflict averse, but there are ways to have direct and productive conflict. But I want to hear from you what you meant because it sounds interesting to me, Gary.
Kegan and Lahey are great. Thanks again, Gary.
Ellen Weber
October 14, 2010 at 12:23pmAnnie and all, Thanks for the way you are helping all of us to see the problems in traditional feedbacks, and in the exchanges these promote. Based on the wonderful challenges, and on my own work to cultivate well being for more innovation, I tried to follow up today in a barrier that raised some of the issues - and started a brief solution.
The solution would take wisdom from all of us -- but it could also segue into the innovation era we all crave. For that reason I'd love to invite your own wisdom, and to hear your practical suggestions for HOW TO BEST RATE A GENUINE INNOVATOR.
When we figure the finest innovative way to rate innovation with quality and integrity -- we will jettison forth with the many amazing offerings of leaders such as this circle. Not easy but the highest innovative challenge and the MIX is more than capable to engage and perfect it! What do you think?
Chary Chigurala
October 12, 2010 at 8:26pmHi Annie, This is a good one. The problem is so real. Two questions for you: Would you suggest this as a 'Voluntary Practice' or would you mandate it during the integration process. Do you see this in any way fast tracking the integration process (through removal of mistrust). If it fast tracks integration, then you can get senior executives attention
Anna Stillwell
October 13, 2010 at 11:17pmHello Chary,
Good to see you again. We never mandated any mindset or practice. We just made them so clear, simple, and helpful that people wanted to use them. I definitely would not mandate it. I don't know whether this made the integration faster, but I know that it made it smoother, more effective, and kept people focused on performing (by their own self reports). This practice was actually one that the senior executive team reached for when the acquisition was made public. The practice was already being used in the culture. It was slowly spreading, but as I mentioned in a comment below, it was the executive team that reached for this practice because they knew the situation was charged (this culture loved how they did things; they didn't want to see anything change). They knew they had to find a way to keep people focused and sane in a sea of fears and uncertainty.
Thanks for stopping by, Chary.
Dhiraj Gupta
October 10, 2010 at 9:22pmHello Annie,
Possible you have missed my comment in this new format so am following it up. Actually, my last comment accepts your response: "We find that usually in the companies that we work for that there are no good guys, there are no bad guys... there are a just bunch of people who either don't have the tools or take the time to understand each other's intentions." Today i see it in a different light. You will always have bunches who either lack the tools or the time or the energy or all of them. And as organizations grow this lot will increase. I see this as a systemic or emerging chronic problem. Your hack offers the way to neutralize their negative potential but can it scale? It is possible we are heading for a situation where we must find a way to manage Knowledge interactions reliably regardless of size, chaos, spacial distribution and volumes. Failing that perhaps we will not be able to put our wisdom to good use.
Regards,
Dhiraj
Anna Stillwell
October 10, 2010 at 10:29pmHello Dhiraj,
I think you have a very good point. Systems are essential. No doubt in my mind. I do not at all disagree with that statement. The latest round of preoccupation with systems, which is entirely legitimate, can, in moments, obscure the power of culture. Both systems and culture are essential to address. This particular Hack focuses on culture and mindsets, an aspect of organizational life that is often ignored by management, even on this site! And we scaled it. Every single person in the organization, with few exceptions, knows this practice. And it is an accepted and used way of relating on a daily basis. So in my mind, it can scale.
And this is trust that we are talking about. I think I have to agree in some ways with Dan, that trust is relational. So yes, we need systems. But you can't reduce trust to a system. You might really like the hack: The Trust Extender. It might be right up your alley.
Dan Oestreich
October 6, 2010 at 12:06pm"The purpose was to inject self-reflective capacity into the organization" -- that's a beautiful goal. I think you've laid out your hack very clearly and eloquently and I loved the fact you included a conversation -- a very concrete example. If the concept and practice cause people to take a look at their negative assumptions and not catastrophize change, that's really fantastic. Where I was taken was also helping people look at the default characteristics of the organizational cultures that might also be in place, such as embedded views of this or that group, management, employees, marketing, sales, engineering, etc. So while I think you are totally right that the dynamics come up more visibly during big changes such as mergers, the extension would be to use a similar technique when times are not so turbulent, this in turn facilitating a deeper examination of the old paradigms, some undoubtedly based on mistrust and self-protection, that have perhaps placed limits on creativity and adaptation for a very long time.
Anna Stillwell
October 7, 2010 at 8:54amHey Dan, I just saw this. I didn't get the usual email alerting me. I'm glad you think that injecting self-reflective capacity into the organization is a beautiful goal! I think so too. That is the part that is most often lost on people who are not part of the experiment, so it feels really good when someone from the outside sees that. That is one of the true transformations in this practice. It's pretty inspiring to hear that people throughout an organization are asking themselves how they came to their conclusions, checking their interpretations, and equipped with a language to resolve conflicts and thus build trust (e.g., "I used to think this guy on my team didn't get it. Then I used the Judgment Factory and asked him what data he was basing his conclusions on. I found out that he knew more about the issue than I did. That will teach me.") That is an actual quote.
We actually began this practice before the acquisition, and it was slowly making its way into org culture (we find that these practices take time to really spread and become a part of the culture) but after the acquisition the practice really took off. Here is why: the Chief Cultural Officer and Learning and Development were training people in it, but it was spreading at a natural pace. When the company was acquired and leaders needed people to stay focused and prevent runaway rumors, fears, and judgments, the team leaders picked up The Judgment Factory and started using it on a daily basis.
We think it can be used in precisely the way that you describe above, we just thought we should be true to what really happened on the ground and let other people apply it in the ways they saw fit. In that way it is half way between a story and a hack. Thanks for taking the time to comment, Dan. If you use this practice for something else, in the way you described, I would be really interested to hear about any barriers you encounter (I actually think barriers are really interesting) and how or if the practice morphs or has unintended consequences. I think barriers and unintended consequences can yield a lot of good ideas. Best to you, Annie.
Dan Oestreich
October 7, 2010 at 12:46pmYes, I'd love to try it, Annie, in conjunction with a lot of other things I do related to defensiveness and team trust (you might have seen my hack about the Team Trust Survey on this site). There are so many good ideas to build trust here and many are additive and could be used in complementary ways. In a way, putting up a contest to see who has the best hack might to a degree actually work against building trust! We ought to be surrounding ourselves with these ideas and saying, how do we build on them, how do we put them all together; what synergy could then come forward from all these stories and all this good work? It seems to me, that could be the real prize. But, oh well, we're moving, and in the right direction.
Many years ago when my co-author and I were writing Driving Fear Out of the Workplace, we became very interested in "cycles of mistrust," meaning reciprocal, negative behaviors, quite patterned, often competitive and undermining, that were driven by background negative assumptions in a relationship. The relationship might be between two people, two groups, two departments, two organizations. It might be between "management" and "labor." The negative assumptions were often "undiscussable" between the parties and had to do with characterizations of others and their motives that were likely to be quite far from the truth. I certainly watched a merger in the health care industry go belly up because the principals were so certain that they knew the other side's negative motives. So clever they were! They were not going to be fooled! And so dead wrong. To deal constructively with the cycles, I believe, self-questioning is extremely helpful, and sometimes it definitely needs to also take the form of a powerful and vulnerable conversation that directly explores the assumptions and where they are coming from. In either of these contexts, the Judgment Factory might be an extremely helpful framework. Many best wishes to you, too, Annie, and good luck with your elegant hack!
Anna Stillwell
October 8, 2010 at 12:39pmHey Dan,
I will check out the Trust Survey. Sounds really interesting. I've been so overwhelmed with work that I haven't had the time to see some of the new stuff that has gone up. Have definitely seen the cycles of mistrust and totally agree that the whole thing feeds on unchecked assumptions. "so certain that they KNEW the other side's negative motives". Goodness, have I seen a lot of that. Over the weekend I'm going to think about your question, how do we put them all together? That is the question that has been on my mind... how do we really MIX? I'm in the process of rebuilding one of my hacks based on all the questions I've received here. But I still sense that there is some greater MIX potential that has not been fully realized.
Thanks for the good wishes. Good luck to you, Dan.
Dhiraj Gupta
October 4, 2010 at 1:45pmDear Annie,
The circumstances you have described so vividly are real. The timing of effecting a cure is well chosen. Reading the hack brought two seemingly different thoughts to mind:
1. M&A is being used as an event to set right a chronic condition. Thus low trust is not really related to the M&A. The M&A only reflects it. Then, is the judgment factory really being used to identify the people who are poisoning the system? The judgments being corrected are unique to the M&A and so not relevant to the chronic condition. Will correcting these people be enough or will the solution be a system for superior collective thinking?
2. I was reminded of the sinking of the Titanic as depicted by James Cameron. The orchestra members chose to play on to do their bit for soothing the nerves on board and restoring dignity to people rapidly running out of options. It was a quality solution but perhaps overwhelmed by the numbers at play. And that brought to mind the disembodied flow of Knowledge presented by Nayantara in her barrier: http://www.managementexchange.com/barrier/need-progress-people-their-kno.... If a disembodied Knowledge flow were possible then just one reverse engineering expert would be enough to work the levers to identify the hot-spots and initiate mentoring action.
Enjoyed your hack. However, considering that in the 21st century interactions or 'Quantity' is gaining ground perhaps the first priority should be a system to bring the interactions under control so that quality may prosper.
Regards,
Dhiraj
Anna Stillwell
October 7, 2010 at 9:08amHello Dhiraj,
I didn't get an email alerting me to your comment. We may have a slightly different views on the issues, it is difficult for me to be sure because I don't exactly understand your questions. But there are a few things I can clarify.
No one was poisoning the system. We find that usually people are not malicious. In some cases people's intentions do not match their impact. We find that usually in the companies that we work for that there are no good guys, there are no bad guys... there are a just bunch of people who either don't have the tools or take the time to understand each other's intentions.
I don't quite understand why this Hack brought The Titanic, a true tragedy, to your mind. In this case there was no sinking ship. There was an admirable company with a truly admirable mission buying another company with an equally cool mission. So The Judgment Factory was in no way intended to soothe people on a sinking ship, because there was no sinking ship and no tragedy. I honestly believe that the two companies can achieve more good for the world together than they could a part. But maybe you meant something different.
Dhiraj Gupta
October 9, 2010 at 10:54pmHello Annie,
We appear to be adept at confusing each other. I sought to view your solution in relation to the problem you defined. I thought the core of the solution was: 'So acute flare-ups, as difficult as they are, provide a unique opportunity to treat a chronic condition.' Hence I decided your solution aim was to identify who or what was creating the chronic condition. But when I wrote that in you have responded: 'We find that usually in the companies that we work for that there are no good guys, there are no bad guys... there are a just bunch of people who either don't have the tools or take the time to understand each other's intentions.' Would I be right in concluding that the purpose was to cure this bunch? Would that imply that the chronic problem would now be resolved? That the chronic problem is often some puny misunderstanding and not Systemic?
The Titanic occurred to me cause the situation on deck was typical of a high pressure situation - numbers whizzing past, events happening at speed and heading towards a tragic conclusion. Titanic was a lesson: prepare for disaster in advance else it cannot be dealt with. Your hack sensed a chronic ailment, You understood the need to isolate it for study and I presume develop measures to eradicate its root in time. So far so good. Made a lot of sense to me. Then I lost the thread. What did you study and conclude in the acute situation that had a bearing for the System? Did you face a barrier in confronting your problem? Was the problem intractable? How does the problem relate to MIX? What was new and 21st century about it? Since this is a hack I expected the solution to have 21st century overtones. But I could not conclude what was the solution.
I am happy there was no tragedy in the scenario you had abstracted. I do not like tragedies. But I do like lessons and I could not find it. In fact I was all prepared to read how your hack dealt with 'quantity' since I am concerned about 'quantity' of interactions steamrolling quality in the 21st century. 'Quantity' was the first word that occurred to me when I read your use of 'dangerous'. .
Regards,
Dhiraj
Anna Stillwell
July 3, 2010 at 10:23amALEX'S COMMENT: "I would also caution that, although the act of minimizing judgements helps, on its own it is insufficient for building trust."
ANNIE'S RESPONSE:
The purpose of this org practice was never to minimize judgments. The purpose was to inject self-reflective capacity into the organization and give people an org wide, culturally acceptable practice (meaning one that they felt was congruent with THEIR culture and THEIR values) to get people to both question their assumptions and talk to others about the meaning (often distorted) that they were making of events around them.
Over the last decade I have seen many trust building initiatives fall flat on their face for a variety of reasons. So instead trying to "build trust," we decided to inject a practice specifically aimed at instilling doubt... in one's own conclusions. The side effect seems to be that it is building greater trust, but the clinical trial is not over yet.
As far as your contention that on its own this practice is insufficient for building trust, I don't quite know how to respond because I don't understand how you define "sufficient" or "trust." For this organization, in this particular case, I am not yet willing to join your conclusion. The clinical trial is not over.
Matt Shlosberg
June 10, 2010 at 1:55amAnnie -
Sounds like a great start in the right direction. Do you think the manager should first build his own awareness of the situation before running through this exercise? How do you eliminate the manager's bias? Also, in the example you provided you show a case of an employer "coaching" an employee by asking questions. This is a great approach! Do you think being able to coach by questioning is a prerequisite to your system working? Do you need outside facilitators to do this or do you think this idea could work with regular managers?
Alex Todd
July 4, 2010 at 1:58amAnnie,
Granted, there are only two ways to build trust. They both involve validation. The first is validating from "interpretive" (subjective, analogous to expert witnesses in court) sources of trust, and the second is "experiential" (objective, analogous to eye witnesses in court) sources of trust. So then the challenge is to empower relying parties to identify the sources they trust to validate the information based on each of the two categories.
However this only works, as I mentioned in my original build suggestion, if there is information to be validated in the first place. If management has nothing to say on a subject and there is no information about it (such as whether there will be layoffs next year) then there is nothing to validate. People can only speculate. I suspect your study will reveal that speculation is futile, and even counterproductive, in the absence of sufficient information. This, on its own, would be a valuable lesson for all to learn.
If, on the other hand, you find that exogenous factors (such as economic forecasts) are fueling such speculation, management may be left with only one other option to overcome the damaging effects; risk transference (namely employing mechanisms or instruments that transfer risks away from employees fearing layoffs).
These insights are based on guidance provided by the Trust Enablement framework, described in the documents referenced in my hack "The Trust Extender: Enlarge the circle of trust by empowering stakeholders to trust and reciprocate trust" (see http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/trust-extender-enlarge-circle-tru...).
I look forward to learning about the results of your "clinical trial".
Anna Stillwell
July 3, 2010 at 10:24amALEX'S COMMENT: "I would also caution that, although the act of minimizing judgements helps, on its own it is insufficient for building trust."
ANNIE'S RESPONSE:
The purpose of this org practice was never to minimize judgments. The purpose was to inject self-reflective capacity into the organization and give people an org wide, culturally acceptable practice (meaning one that they felt was congruent with THEIR culture and THEIR values) to get people to both question their assumptions and talk to others about the meaning (often distorted) that they were making of events around them.
Over the last decade I have seen many trust building initiatives fall flat on their face for a variety of reasons. So instead trying to "build trust," we decided to inject a practice specifically aimed at instilling doubt... in one's own conclusions. The side effect seems to be that it is building greater trust, but the clinical trial is not over yet.
As far as your contention that on its own this practice is insufficient for building trust, I don't quite know how to respond because I don't understand how you define "sufficient" or "trust." For this organization, in this particular case, I am not yet willing to join your conclusion. The clinical trial is not over.
Alex Todd
June 21, 2010 at 9:04amYou are absolutely correct that people interpret facts in subjective ways, by making assumptions. Landmark Education (http://www.landmarkeducation.ca/) has a very powerful technique for helping people stop creating stories about events and focus on the facts, similar to your proposed hack. The book "The Three Laws of Performance" (http://www.threelawsofperformance.com/) by Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan uses the same principles and applies them to a business environment. I highly recommend these resources as a suggested build to round out your hack.
I would also caution that, although the act of minimizing judgments helps, on its own it is insufficient for building trust. Landmark helps in this area as well by addressing critical factors, such as integrity and authenticity. However, my hack "The Trust Extender" may also provide a useful build, by considering the information people are being expected to rely on. Too often, attempts to rebuild lost trust are in vain when management has nothing to say or promise employees (due to insufficient information, pending decisions, and/or unwillingness to disclose information), which leaves them with uncertainty (and causes speculation, as you mention). However, in these situations, inhibiting speculation will not rebuild trust. There is no substitute for providing the required information and the means by which employees can validate it in order to develop trust, and/or protect themselves from relying on it in order to begin the process of restoring trust.
Anna Stillwell
June 11, 2010 at 1:00amMatt -
Thanks for the questions. Every organization is different, so I'll abstain from making general comments and focus on the "clinical trial."
In our "clinical trial" of this practice we have used no outside facilitators. Not even us. We taught it to one person only, who was then charged with injecting it into the 3000 person organization. The practice happens not just between leaders and employees, but more often between employees. (I think the idea of the manager as the only one with people responsibilities is, in some cases, coming to an end). They now help each other become aware of the manufacturing process. They may not always get the words just right, but nobody seems to mind. Everybody catches the drift. Good enough works. Now most often people just say, "case of the Judgment Factory" and the person runs through the process by themselves without any help from anyone! But again, this is a new practice so let's track the results of the clinical trial to improve treatment.
Now, every organization is different, so just because this is the case in one place, doesn't mean that will be so every where. But in general, my preference is to do away with coaches and facilitators. Not always, but most often. If the practice relies on outside facilitation then it doesn't really "take." People have to be able to own it themselves. For that reason we invest a good deal of analysis and creativity in DISCOVERY & DESIGN. Which organization are we trying to change? At what level (Executive team, management, the entire organization)? What is their culture like? What do they value? What do they think is important? What do they pay attention to? How do they talk? What kind of language do they use? (For example, in another organization, we might very well keep the concept and change the language. Turning the mental process into a factory was absolutely intentional in this case, in some other culture, people might see that as "mechanical" and "industrial"--the point being that language matters).
If we don't answer all of these questions in the DESIGN of the practice, then most likely the organization will have an "immuno-response" and reject it. Why? Because it is foreign. It doesn't look like them. It doesn't sound like them. Or they simply don't care about it.
As far as managers needing to build their own awareness... I'm not quite sure what you mean about that. But let me tell you how I think in general, and it may answer the question: Don't wait for perfection. Everything is an experiment. Everything is an iteration. Try it. Track the results. Pay attention to the word on the street. Iterate. I imagine if the Judgment Factory really takes in this org, within a year it won't look like the practice we designed. That would be a sign of success in my mind. (If that doesn't answer your question or you meant something different, let me know).
And we don't try to eliminate the manager's bias or anyone else's for that matter. It would take to long. Nor do I think it necessary. Instead we focus on creating practice that everyone can do given that we are all biased.
What is the MIX?
Announcing the first-ever MIX live event:
the MIX Mashup—a day-long gathering of the vanguard of management innovators.
Meet the pioneering leaders, courageous experimenters, and agenda-setting thinkers who have taken on the status quo (and won)—and leave inspired and equipped to make an impact in your own organization.
We are opening up this limited-capacity event to the MIX community. Apply to attend here.
More Hacks Like This
MIX Pulse
Submit a Hack
Help invent the future of management. Propose a radical fix and see your idea take root and grow.
Chary Chigurala
November 23, 2010 at 9:33pmCongrats Annie on a wonderful achievement