Moonshots
Summary
No organizational design is perfect. Whether hierarchy, meritocracy or some other form, there will always be a part of human genius and experience that escapes these idealized human creations. This genius -- which is always outside the formal design and stated practice -- is exactly what we can draw upon to improve what we've got and even at times create a revolution. Yet often we miss this dynamic source of change energy and opportunities for innovation because we come in contact with our personal defensiveness, our human, emotional attachment to our current vision of ourselves and our organizations.
This is not a new problem. Scholars and practitioners such as Chris Argryis and Edgar Schein many years ago described the dilemma of two realities present in every system. Sometimes described as "the cultural iceberg," these and other writers have defined a formal, above the waterline world of organization chart, strategic plan, written policies, and official values statements; and also a below the waterline world representing the actual behavior of the organization and the people who make it up. In Stanley Herman's classic diagram, shown below, what is above the waterline reflects "the way we say we get things done." Below the waterline represents "how we really get things done."
How can we best make use of the tension between these two worlds, a tension that holds the source of genius, to stimulate ongoing disruption in our enterprise practices? An essential place to start is asking the question, "How do I as a leader collude in creating the very problems I say I want to solve?" Always present, incongruency in ourselves and in our organization, is the very source of genius.
Problem
Wendell L Franch and Cecil H. Bell, Jr, Organisation Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organisational Improvement, 2nd Ed., © 1978
This is a familiar image from the past. But how well have we tackled it here at the MIX on the way to re-visioning management? As we continue to develop our stories and hacks that revolutiionize our systems and designs, including those for problem-solving, engagement, power, and pay, we may have left out the one most important aspect of an innovative approach -- which is understanding and managing human incongruency. Every system, every person has blind spots, and this is nowhere more destructive to creativity, adaptation and resilience than in the incongruency of leadership behavior. Here are a few examples from my own experience:
- The CEO who says he would like "to open up communications in the management team" but becomes angry and abruptly ends the effort when members of his senior team suggest that his own behavior (blowing up at managers publicly) is part of the reason people don't speak up.
- The senior VP of a research organization that says she wants to encourage more cross-disciplinary collaborations, but does not engage people in a discussion of this topic because she does not see herself as "very good with this people stuff."
- The manager who wants to guide a team that in her words, "feels more like a community of practice than a work unit" but who becomes so emotional about human relationships that she drives people away from her own vision.
- The IT Vice President who wants his department's management team to operate as a self-leading group and believes so thoroughly that the end of the day "the best idea will win through debate" that members' conflicting ideologies (including his own) that block all decisions in the group. As a result the reputation of the department suffers and eventually, because of the team's inaction on critical organizational imperatives, he is replaced.
In each case, the leader is a well-intentioned person whose own behaviors contradict the stated goal. Yet a variety of defenses protect the person from constructively hearing and dealing with the data which in turn deeply undermines organizational performance. In the first case, abusive behavior; in the second, deflective comments combined with a superficial desire to 'hear feedback;' in the third, emotional over-personalizing; and in the fourth, endless cognitive debate and reframing of what's going on. In each case, even though the interest was in creating a more open, innovative, and human organization, the behavior of the leaders was incongruent. They had disconnected self-knowledge from systems knowledge. They had divorced their own behavior from the behavior of the organization.
An underlying problem today is the assumption that simply by changing systems and structures will this leadership dilemma decline. This is not to say redesign work should stop. Henri Lipmanowcz and Keith McCandless call their own broad collection of these experimental mechanisms, from "open space" to "positive deviance," liberatingstructures. That's a beautiful term, and we do not want to stop that work at all -- it's a good deal of what MIX is about.
But there must be a second, closely integrated effort to foster self-knowledge at a "meta" level in order to blend the desire to release people's true capabilities with an understanding of any system's most fundamental boundary on innovation -- undiscussable incongruency. It's one thing to say we need new systems; quite another to discuss and act on our own incongruency -- the need to be different ourselves. We not only need liberating structures, we need liberating consciousness, which will not be so easy to pull off. It won't be easy because we are not very good at seeing how our own actions interfere with what we consider to be our values and our own creations. To discuss such things makes us truly vulnerable.
In traditional organizations, this problem often surfaces as criticism of leaders who fail to "walk the talk" or who "lack integrity," who control via their own hypocrisy, and who punish any messengers who dare bring to light a discrepancy. The questions is, what would it take to completely reverse the formula, so that such news was actively welcomed?
What would happen if instead of being offended the leaders saw this information, personally challenging or painful as it might be, as a enormous competitive edge? What if we could turn "hypocrisy" into the "gold" of personal and organizational transformation?
There is no question that this is a very big wall. But is it possible to drill through it?
From my consulting experience over the last twenty years, I would say the more power, influence, success, and stature people gain, and the more visible and exposed their leadership role, the more often 1) extraordinarily well developed defense mechanisms protect them from seeing and accepting personal incongruency; and 2) the response becomes more personal, emotional, and offended when incongruency is surfaced. The stakes are certainly higher. But really the same pattern is true for everyone. As with the CEO who blows up when he is told he has a problem with blowing up, we are all very good at using our defensive patterns of behavior to prevent looking carefully at those very defensive patterns.
This dynamic is not a product of hierarchy, although in some sense hierarchy may reinforce it. It is a matter of attachment to particular ideas and a particular sense of self -- something not confined to any particular type of organization. As long as there are owners, people who have power over structure and communication, the problem of incongruency potentially pertains.
The interior experience of being offended is important to consider. Usually based on a cortisol-driven fight or flight reactions, it is one of being emotionally hijacked. When our hypocrisy is noticed and called out, it's normal to feel angry, embarrassed, disappointed, or depressed. For all our good intentions, superior awareness, impeccable logic, higher values, and compassionate sensitivity, we are all prone to leak bad behavior. In turn this comes across as denial, deflection, silence or bullying, with predictable reciprocity from others affected by the leaders' behavior. People naturally conclude the organization is (at least in part) fear based, and typically attribute their reluctance to speak up to potential repercussions or the fact it will do no good. As a result, the system, the culture and the people stay the same.
Creating various meritocracies and other rating and ranking systems, flattening the organization, "making everyone a leader " with upward and cross feedback, broader use of social technologies -- are all well and good, but they don't fully cure this core problem: the actual leaders -- those with stature and power -- must show their capacity to deal with their own incongruency. Otherwise, in the end, the old underlying norms currently linked to hierarchy will simply transfer to the new system -- where the background culture will continue to be undermined by defensiveness, though the organizational form may be slightly different.
Everywhere we turn, it seems, the biggest problem affecting workplaces is that the leaders are not dealing with is their feet of clay. Maybe that's because we haven't figured out there is no organizational design or "program" to prevent incongruency. And it's not about the other people. It's about us, and the robust choice to turn the "hard news" that touches us personally into an advantage for growth, change and innovation. No pain, no gain.
Solution
Some first understandings about the Incongruency Principle can help move us forward:
- Incongruence is a source of break-through learning in blind spot areas -- by definition hard to learn from because they threaten personal identity and/or organizational brand and reputation.
- Incongruence is not something a person or an organization can ever fully "overcome." There will always be some level of incongruence as new layers of understanding reveal themselves and new challenges emerge.
- Incongruence exists on a personal level that is connected to the organization and vice versa -- the problem is not "out there" with others; it is "in here" with self and organization together.
We need, in effect, an ongoing personal practice -- and ethic -- that draws on both interpersonal and intrapersonal capabilities. Yet this process, as Peter Senge noted long ago regarding Personal Mastery, cannot be forced, only invited. I must choose to take on the challenge for me. There is no external, organizational program universally smarter than the defensive strengths of individuals.
Core Questions
What would such a practice and ethic entail -- and how would we build it into our organizational lives in a way that is both voluntary and deep enough to be meaningful?
Like Edison with lightbulbs, we know some things that don't work terribly well, including 360 degree performance assessments, broad employee or customer surveys, team development events, once-a-year retreats or "all-hands" meetings, and much individual leadership/management/communications/performance management training and organization development. All notable, potentially productive tools, but often applied too superficially, and used as a way to manage others, not self. Moreover, since it is the top leaders who are the most defended, typically all of these techniques and programs actually serve to conceal their flaws -- while they are discussed privately in the halls, bathrooms, and parking lot, and the "meeting after the meeting."
The greatest gains are made when the leader creates an environment of psychological safety and trust:
- A leader or leadership group asks for information about personal and organizational incongruence directly.
- This is initiated and continued voluntarily over a long period of time.
- The leader or leaders specifically search out the coupling of individual and organization behaviors.
- People help each other get past their defensiveness rather than exacerbate it.
- As a community, people help each other grow and mature in what they are learning about themselves and their enterprise community.
This represents, I believe, a call for a different kind of human being. We could say this person is at once tougher and more sensitive, more engaged with personal growth, more creative, open, and resilient. Such words and concepts are often incorporated into to catch-all terms, such as "authentic." But this work may not be so easily categorized.
Stress
If a person asks about incongruence and receives accurate data, it can take a toll, creating significant internal stress. In doing so, people are, after all, directly inviting feedback, including negative or discouraging information. It takes a community to support this effort. And for the individual it may mean a level of self-care that strengthens core elements of personality in order to reduce natural defensiveness and overcome such compensating postures as arrogance, dismissal, outward and inward blame.
Our solutions need to help people cope with this stress. While everyone has their own ways of dealing with data that disconfirms self-image, here are some examples of combinable strategies, based on Howard Gardner's eight intelligences:
- Interpersonal: Reduce stress by talking with others about incongruences you've discovered. What do they make of them? What can they add in terms of interpretation and reassurance?
- Physical/Kinesthetic: Run, golf, bike, weight lift, dance your way out of the stress that comes from gaining disconfirming data.
- Linguistic: Write free-form in a journal about what you are learning. Write a story about it and then check your story for insights that challenge an older way of being. Read books about leadership growth and learning, such as Peter Koestenbaum's seminal Leadership: the inner side of greatness.
- Logical/Analytical: Look for the direct benefits of gaining data that doesn't just reinforce earlier self-concepts and protect yourself from the truth. Remind yourself of the value of busting personal, not just organizational paradigms. Learn to see perceptual data (how people feel or see things) as meaningful clues to deeper, more fundamental forms of psychological and social knowledge.
- Visual/Spatial: Use artistic or architectural forms to depict core incongruencies, such as fractured images and buildings that will topple. Then interpret these forms by asking, "What have I actually drawn?" "What does this mean to me?" "To our organization?"
- Intrapersonal: Meditate to relieve the stress of information about which you might otherwise feel emotional. And also meditate on the incongruent data. Sit with it, cultivating both detachment and learning.
- Naturalistic: Walk in the natural world to regain your sense of equilibrium. Consider the source of incongruence nature itself. Where do you find disruption true in nature -- a flood, a fire, an earthquake -- what is the process and result?
- Musical: Spend time singing, writing, or listening to music in order to relax. What emotions does the incongruity provoke? How can that be represented in musical form? How do "these notes" resolve?
These approaches can help relax defensiveness, including the need to blame self or others in favor of learning. They can help us integrate information that doesn't fit with a sense of who we are. But clearly, this is only a start and much more work needs to be done to help people deal with the large emotions that attend personal disruption.
Another key step is in learning to avoid the notion that this is what other leaders should do rather than me. Every effort to "scale" such a solution beyond the self displaces where change needs to be. Time and again, the effort to "fix" the problem by setting up processes to fix others create the very barriers that keep the old world in place. This is the shift: from external to internal, from "exporting" to "importing" awareness, from giving feedback to asking for it. This is the fundamental, most innovative scheme of a revised consciousness and where liberation is. Any other direction leads back to the notion that if only we get the formula right, and force others to practice it, our management problems will be solved.
Example:
Several top leaders of a billion dollar agribusiness decided that "top leadership" needed to improve. Instead of arguing about efforts designed to change others, however, these key players sat down together to address the problem for themselves. They identified that the corporation had no real definition of effective leadership. They worked together to assemble the best definition of specific attributes they could think of. They then, on their own and not part of any program, individually asked for feedback from their direct reports about how well they personally met this definition. They then came back together to report their findings and ask for help from one another. Finally, as a collective they brought their discoveries back to the senior team as a whole, inviting others to conduct the same process.
A white male CEO interested in creating a greater level of employee engagement received feedback about his behavior from an African American manager who worked for him. The manager told the CEO that his behavior at a meeting just both had just attended could have been construed as "somewhat racist." After exploring the incident with the manager, the CEO asked his permission to share the incident at an all-employee meeting of two hundred plus people. At the meeting the CEO expressed what had happened and recognized the manager as the kind of "hero" that exemplified exactly the engagement he was encouraging. He then asked that anyone he had ever inadvertently offended -- for any reason -- to come talk with him. Several people later came forward to talk with him privately. As a result the leader's credibility increased, and more importantly people saw that engagement included courageously inviting and learning from incongruency data.
There is an enormous difference between "programs" and real energy based on an ethic of self-awareness, growth, and change. When feedback is required, too often it becomes a anxiety producing tool of control -- that is defended against. When it is based on what a person naturally would like to know about him/herself, however, an entirely different ballgame can get started.
The issue is always the conditions under which a person naturally explores the Incongruence Principle. If the assumption is that is only under conditions of pressure and force, rather than invitation, opportunity, and self-defined responsibility, then defensiveness -- in whatever form -- is likely to be triggered. Such learning is always a choice.
The solution, in a sense, is not in a particular process at all. It's in the choice.
Yet, here is the hope -- and it is one drawn largely from the culture of social media (more than current devices) and the provocation of open source software (more than current content). Social media, as a colleague commented to me, is "crowd-sourced consciousness." It makes awareness -- or the lack of it -- ever more visible. The time is right to take a giant step forward, with crowd-sourced feedback as well.
Practical Impact
When leaders begin to see what a powerful tool the Incongruency Principle is, they are able to effect deep personal and organizational changes. The design and culture of the organization begin to respond to a very different kind of strategic imperative.
For example, some years ago I worked with a telecommunications company where the President seemed quite confident when questioned by members of the senior team regarding a particular project. He was absolutely certain it would be completed on time for a key customer. The way he shared his opinion seemed intended to reassure that "yes, we can do it." But the truth was that no one else in the room believed it -- and for good reason. Most of them knew the project was far behind and was facing huge challenges but these problems had become undiscussable in the face of the President's confidence. Luckily, the President noticed the whole dynamic, including how his own "confidence" might actually be a problem. He suggested in the moment that perhaps his own behavior was incongruent with organizational reality. By publicly reflecting that he "might not know everything" and welcoming additional data, he and the team opened to a new level of collaboration, not only on the very sticky issues with the project, but to the communication patterns in the room. It gave the president a chance to answer a much more fundamental question voiced by one of his chief reports as part of the discussion, "Do you want us to lie about what we can actually do?" And it also led to a deeper examination of the role dysfunctional promises played as part of internal competitions of the senior team members themselves.
It's easy to imagine the losses to customers if these conversations within the senior team had not happened. The "yes, we can do it" project would have failed at the eleventh hour -- or later, severely affecting the company's reputation. More importantly, without the conversation and the openness of the president it's entirely possible his reputation would become mired in the assumption he did want people to lie, a much bigger, longer-term problem and scenario for disaster on many projects, not just one.
In another situation, a relatively small organization owned by two brothers was facing great internal discord between the sales force and a small support staff. The entire company assembled to talk through the problems. One of the support staff opened the conversation by saying he understood that sales group's hostility -- if he were in their shoes, he said, he's be advocating for his own termination. The sales group and the owners were shocked by such an admission and asked questions. The staff member shared his negative entrance to the company, the lack of communications, the poor equipment, the absent training. Immediately the owners started expressing their frustration and blaming the manager to whom the support staff reported. "Where's the training program? Where's the new equipment?" they shouted. The manager then reminded them that both had been axed in the last budget -- by the two owners. Now the brothers turned on each other, "You did it!" "No, you did it!" Suddenly, the Incongruency Principle hit them in the face, and they broke into laughter. "Oh no, WE did it!" they said -- and now everyone was laughing -- with them. When the laughter subsided, these two brave leaders apologized profusely and invited a conversation about what to do. The company as a whole then easily developed a cluster of actions to restore great service to the Sales group and restore open collaboration to the system as a whole.
Such stories do not make, as I was told by a CEO who disputed the value of the Incongruency Principle, a "refined business model." How much money will be saved? he asked. How will we know when we've done enough? It seems to me these questions illustrate the need to think through the goals of any particular business in more detail. In the first case, the company clearly wanted to use meeting its deadlines as an element of its positive reputation with customers. In the second, quickly processing its orders and providing great service, internally and externally. What costs, tangible and intangible, do you think were involved?
First Steps
What I've been trying to do in my coaching, consulting and training work -- as a "quick and dirty experiment" is help people see their own defensive styles and the links to their organizations. In this section, I'd like to share one way to get at defensive style, and then also discuss how an organization can use the Incongruency Principle to make headway toward innovation.
Part I: Your Own Defensive Style
I'm going to back into the topic of Defensive Style by starting from something called, "Implicit Leadership Theory," which if you click the link will yield a sample of social sciences research conducted over the last thirty years or so. ILT simply refers to the fact that we all hold a personal and internal view of what effective leadership is and we use it to both judge others and ourselves. Here's one way to find out about your own ILT:
Take a sheet of paper and divide it in half. The right, write the word "Vision," on the left the word, "Anti-Vision". (See below.)
Now, not taking more than about ninety seconds or so, on the "Vision side," write a list of traits that you feel define effective leadership -- the kind of leader you personally would always want to be. There's no right or wrong. Just make the list according to what you personally believe.
Next, taking about the same amount of time, on the "Anti-Vision" side, make a list of the traits of a very poor leader, the kind of leader you would never want to be.
In developing these lists, don't see them as a set of polar opposites -- better to divorce them from one another and think about people who you feel model these good and bad traits. The only prohibited traits are "defensive" and "non-defensive" -- as they won't be useful in this context. Please make the lists now, before reading further.
Now, once you have both lists, go back to the "Vision" side. Circle the one trait that you believe you already best exemplify and are most proud of. On the "Anti-Vision" side, circle the trait that you see yourself "leak" from time to time, particularly under stress, a trait that embarrasses you or that you feel some shame about. If you've done this correctly, your sheet might look something like this:
Now, to get at defensive style, you'll need to complete just a couple more steps. Create two "wheel diagrams" that look like this:
Label the first diagram, "Dark Side," and write the trait you circled under "Anti-Vision" in the center of the wheel. Next, for as many of the "spokes" as you can, illustrate this trait with some specific behaviors you know you do that express this trait. Fill in the "Light Side" diagram by writing the trait you circled on the "Vision" side into the center of the wheel diagram, and similarly, write in behaviors for as many spokes as possible that express this trait. A "behavior" is what you or others could see and hear. For example, "brooding behind a closed door" is a behavior. So is "intervene when people start to argue." If you've done this correctly, you might end up with wheel diagrams such as the following (these are only examples).
Now, here's the connection to defensive style. Defensive style is made up of two components: How I typically defend myself and what I tend to get defensive about. The "Dark Side" diagram is the "how" part. Under stress these are likely to be behaviors more frequently exhibited, because under stress people are more likely to feel the need for self-defense. The "Light Side" tends to be what you get defensive about. That is, when whatever is listed in the center of the diagram is threatened or questioned in some way, directly or indirectly, by circumstance or via a challenge from someone else, the behaviors listed on the "Dark Side" are likely to show up. It's often a surprise that it's the "Light Side" diagram that is part of the equation. We tend to think of strengths as a good thing, but because we attach ourselves to them so thoroughly as part of our identity, we actually tend to feel more vulnerable when they are under attack than when we experience criticism in an area where we know we are weak.
Obviously, this is an overly simple sketch of defensiveness but it may prove useful in helping detach, not only from the method of our defensiveness but the self-definition we are trying to maintain. We learn that we are more than our defensiveness -- and more, too, than our rather fragile self-image.
I may see how, if I think one of my of real leadership strengths is my willingness to adapt, that when this is questioned my sense of identity could momentarily falter -- and I'll react. Or I may learn, if I'm particularly smart, and I see myself making a "dumb" mistake, how I become upset. If I'm proud of my sensitivity and maturity, I can see that something that causes me to react "immaturely" will likely create an even bigger reaction according the "Dark Side" diagram.
In terms of incongruency, I also learn that it is precisely at these points where deeper learning can occur. Perhaps, for example, my failure to adapt is really a big opportunity to bust my own paradigm about stuff I thought was really important to me. Maybe by seeing this mistake in detail, I actively gain intelligence. Perhaps by noticing and accepting my "immaturity," an entirely new form of maturity arises. As Warren Bennis wrote said, "Everywhere you trip is where the treasure lies."
Example:
The two heads of market and of engineering have an opportunity for a rather public conversation at a meeting about the conflict between their departments. They are both part of the same profit center for a global electronics firm. The head of Marketing asks for feedback about her own team's behavior and the Engineering Manager shares a great many negative perceptions of the Marketing team. They are making promises to customers that are unrealistic, he says, and they consistently bad-mouth the engineering team inside and outside the firm, as if they are causing the company to fail. This alone could have resulted in a fight (an exchange of mutual defensiveness) between the two. Instead, the Marketing manager went a step further to break out the cycle of reciprocal defending. She asked, "And how is my own behavior contributing to these problems." After a moment, the Engineering manager went into that problem, too, giving her specific examples of her own promises, and her own bad-mouthing of the department -- what she did not know he knew about. Her reply was humble, "Then we need to change as a team, and I need to change as a leader. You have my promise to work on this, for myself and for my group, and I'd like to talk in more detail about how we can repair the damage." The Engineering manager was stunned and of course confessed that he and his own team were not blameless, and that they certainly did need to work together.
Only when it comes down to this personal level, where defensive style is understood well enough to be put on hold can "systems" breakthroughs of this magnitude occur. None of us are immune from the Incongruency Principle. We may see, as the Marketing manager did, that our defenses are actively undermining the very things we've publicly stated as personally dear.
No one said this was easy work. If your heart is not pounding a little doing it, then you may not yet be where the richest treasures lie.
Part II: Application to an Enterprise
I'm actually a little uncomfortable trying to articulate a sample process that turns a "consciousness" into a series of action steps. It makes more sense for a person or team to create their own process, as the leaders of the agribusiness mentioned earlier did for themselves. Then it's not a "program" or an "effort," something forced or based on some expertise we don't own. What I am listing here are some basic principles to stimulate your own thinking about specific applications that you and others might design yourselves.
I believe this is eminently doable online by the way. In the beginning, perhaps, some facilitation to encourage, support, and identify themes might be helpful, but over time as people become more practiced, my bet is that less "intervention" and structuring would be needed.
1. An enterprise first needs to establish a separate and general "meta" forum for open discussion of the "above the waterline" and "below the waterline" worlds. In particular, it would make sense to highlight the mission, values, structures, policies and official practices of the organization as a foundation for your discussion. By "forum," I don't mean, "anonymous survey," by the way. I mean free space to openly and personally talk together about the values, mission, structure, and performance of the enterprise. This could be online or in person.
2. Some ground rules may be helpful to encourage commentary and a sense of community. Every effort needs to be made to ensure a safe and responsive environment that can overcome the two greatest enemies of innovative culture -- fear of some form of negative repercussion for speaking up and/or a sense of futility that comes from lack of meaningful dialogue and response. The leaders do this by virtue of their demonstrated sincerity and their willingness to operate non-defensively. People can tell whether the leaders are genuine and real about it or not.
3. One or more questions based on the Incongruency Principle need to be formed to get things going. A core one, using MIX as an example would be, "How does the MIX itself, in its goals, values, systems and practices, and how it is actually used by people, work against its own goals of "reinventing management?" In other words, how is the organization standing in its own way or working against its own specific strategic intention.
4. The forum needs to include a request from specific owners/leaders for feedback about their leadership. This is absolutely vital and is often best facilitated by individuals specifically asking for information about qualities, characteristics, events, decisions, or other patterns of behavior to which the Incongruency Principle can be applied personally. For example, a leader might ask for feedback about whether his/her presence is "universally respectful" -- if that's important personally. This whole aspect of the "ask" is intended to break through the age old taboo that prevents people from talking to each other directly and openly. At its best, this needs to be an open, not anonymous process, although certainly it can have an element of confidential one-on-one feedback -- with a caveat that the leader be willing to talk about patterns in what he/she is learning about him/herself from such conversations.
None of this, by the way, is different from what any and all of us should be doing as members of an enterprise. We're all leaders. But it often helps when those with a formal leadership or ownership stake get the ball rolling. And more than anything else, this part of the personal/organizational learning process must be deeply and personally sincere, a matter of essential growth for the individual and the organization.
5. A persistent dialogue needs to be created. This principle is often the hardest to enact, which is to do the work of creating a positive and meaningful dialogue around the issues that arise, the actions that need to take place, and, once they have taken place, how well they are working. Sometimes a leader may gain an insight he or she can act on alone; sometimes the team of owners/leaders must make some decisions together from what surfaces in the "meta" forum. In other cases, issues that surface from this market of ideas must go back out to everyone for consideration. What's important is persistence so that participation increases as time goes by, rather than dies out.
Obviously, this is not a "one-time" process, but an ongoing opening laboratory, an invitation to deep participation in the very foundations of an organization, its culture and its leadership.
Loose Ends
This is a very big topic, and I thank all of you who have read through this hack. I also want to invite a conversation right here and now about what you like and don't like about this hack. It's far from perfect, and I certainly could not defend these ideas without also inviting your views of how the Incongruency Principle applies to this material and my presentation, as well. So please bring it on! I am particularly interested in making sure this hack comes across as positive and helpful, and filled with sufficient examples.
If this hack in some way has stimulated your own genius and caused you to reflect on how you might use some of these ideas for yourself and within whatever enterprises you are part of, it will have been most successful!
A variation of this hack, under the title "On Hypocrisy and Self-Protection" is also available on my blog at this link.
Credits
My thanks to Ellen Weber for introducing me to Gardner's theory of intelligences.
June 20, 2011 at 4:40pm
Thanks for your thoughtful post Dan – as you suggest new ways of going at leadership – you’d likely release a diverse mix of leaders – and also open new job opportunities the nation craves!
I’d like to respond through Mita’s tested and proven 5 Brainpowered Lenses, since that’s the way I guide liberating consciousness journeys– through researched Mita windows, which your reflection
inspired me to revisit here:
• Question possibilities, and ask: How can I encourage leaders to extend leadership, trust and community to include each person’s offering as well as life-changing discoveries about the human brain?
• Target improvements by viewing growth through each one’s perspective – and support trust between us by enhancing the best in each as well as proposing alternatives for parts that work less well.
• Expect quality differences so that people at the MIX become capital and knowledge gets shared in ways that add excellence to the entire community.
• Move multiple intelligences into genuine action tools for evidence based team solutions – after I’ve questioned my own involvement and set reachable targets for myself that can be both measured and tracked fairly.
• Reflect on growth possibilities by considering: What if we designed a way together to host a celebration of innovation that engaged the wider community, focused on building trust, and opened our approaches to a very different kind of leadership that valued more than rated ideas based on conventional assessments.
Then I can see more clearly the need for the robust dialogue you detailed here, and for the facilitation skills needed to sustain it to its endpoints in an engaged, talented and highly innovation circle of leaders pulling together!
You have opened some delightful questions here that fuel Mita 5-step leadership renewal work daily – Dan – thanks! Mita Brainpowered tools are chiefly concerned with doable applications in the form of mind-bending action steps – built from diverse leaders with human brains in mind. The tools are then applied in ways that gain proven higher motivation and achievement for an entire group. I will be interested to see how others suggest turning consciousness into doable and innovative action steps.
Thanks to you and many MIX leaders for refreshing triggers that could help us design innovations that shape workplaces into the communities we want others to see in us.
- Log in to post comments
June 20, 2011 at 5:44pm
Thank you, Ellen. You know how much I love and respect the MITA perspective, although there are elements of it that are different from my own. What I've written here is the product of my own experiences over the last twenty years or so with what I've seen some very good leaders do, using themselves selflessly as instruments of change, integrating action and consciousness so very well. I suspect that leaders who are able to model your five steps might also quite naturally ask the tough questions of themselves and their organizations that I am suggesting. And perhaps by asking the questions I suggest a person might also begin to wake up to the value of the points you've listed here, too. Thanks so much for your continuing help and observations, and let's keep the dialogue going on where some cross-over points might be!
- Log in to post comments
June 21, 2011 at 4:53am
Agree Dan and thanks, the "dialogue" is often what moves team innovation forward. Used the Mita approach to try and see what is your main question here? Hoped I'd spark you to help me understand a bit more of your suggested direction:-).
What one core question are you asking. What clear target do you suggest? Can you list a few bullet expectations?And how (in one core trigger statement) would you suggest it rolls out:-)?
That's why I used the Mita leadership approach to try and see your proposal with clearer vision. Thoughts?
- Log in to post comments
June 21, 2011 at 8:51am
Thanks for continuing the exchange, Ellen!
Let me take a shot at this!
The question is really the one listed in the summary statement, which is from a leader's voice: "How do I as a leader collude in the very problems I say I want to solve?" This question is a pre-emptive strike. Instead of waiting for others to bring me data about my blindspots I am asking for that data upfront. Too often, when people are brought "bad news" they react, denying or blaming, and the problems stay fixed in the system based on their "undiscussability." That can happen in overt and in subtle ways. It's the "killing the messenger" syndrome familiar to many.
The targets and expectations might depend on context. If, as a leader, I am interested in closing the gap between estimated and actual expenses, I might vary the question to suit the circumstance: "What is my role in creating the very gap I'm asking others to close?" Or if I'm interested in creating an environment for employee engagement, I might ask, "How am I standing in the way of the high level of engagement I've said is important to me?" The target in the first case has to do with closing a measurable gap. In the second, the target may be "squishier" but still measurable, such as responses to a survey that assesses my perceived commitment to engagement.
The expectations again might well depend on the variation in the question. Using the first one listed above related to an expenses gap, the expectations might include:
• the gap is always a discussable problem, no matter who is involved
• we collaborate in an environment of "no blame" to address the issues
• we set realistic budgets for projects that reflect the true capability of the system
Using the second question, about engagement, the expectations might be:
• we are all in a process of discovery about what facilitates and what impedes engagement
• we communicate openly and directly in an environment of mutual trust
• we respect and work to understand differing vantage points
Your last question about a "core trigger statement" about roll-out is less clear to me, Ellen. I suspect this is where the bridge to the "liberating consciousness" I mention in the hack might be. What I am suggesting does take seeing with a different set of eyes because defending is such a powerful and ingrained response when something important about us feels threatened. There are different levels of sensitivity. But I love the (true) story of the engineering and marketing managers in the Defensive Style section under First Steps. The environmental trigger was the sense of tension in the room between these two people. They felt it viscerally and it leaked via double-messages in comments that were on one hand polite and on the other revealed an underlying conflict. That tension triggered an invitation for feedback from the marketing head. In turn, that led to one level of information about problems between the two departments. But that information then also triggered a second question, deeper and more fundamental: the marketing director's request for personal feedback about her own contribution to those problems.
This is one way, circumstantially, that the core question can be used. But in the hack, I am actually advocating the awareness and capability that enabled the marketing director to ask both the first and especially the second question. What is that awareness? In the hack, I refer to "genius" that stands outside any system. The awareness is this: that tapping that genius is worth the risk -- if indeed you want change and innovation -- and even if hurts some personally. The marketing director displayed that awareness. She allowed a mirror to be held up to her own participation without reservation.
What is it that triggers our willingness to allow such moments, despite the risk of potential pain? Instead of reacting, defending, asserting, to actively welcome the mirror? You are not likely to go there as a leader unless you know that the system itself is inextricably bound up with who you are, that ideas are not separate from the people who share them, that the brighter and more certain the light you follow, the deeper the shadows that fall behind you.
- Log in to post comments
June 25, 2011 at 6:03pm
Dan, I like how you framed this discussion -- lots of good stuff in here to apply!
This is the crux of the matter:
"It is a matter of attachment to particular ideas and a particular sense of self -- something not confined to any particular type of organization. As long as there are owners, people who have power over structure and communication, the problem of incongruency potentially pertains."
As I read this, I am reminded of how much my own attachments to ideas and a particular sense of self are with me in every walk of my life. A healthy, sobering reminder.
This line is great: "There is no external, organizational program universally smarter than the defensive strengths of individuals."
So very true!!
I think there are some types of training programs -- such as mindfulness training -- that, when run properly, and without any expectations or strings attached, can help people to recognize the incongruency principle at work in themselves.
For example, Google has an employee education program called "Search Inside Yourself" that teaches mindfulness meditation and the neuroscience of emotional intelligence:
http://www.contemplativemind.org/resources/SUN_Sept09_Google.pdf
Increasing self-awareness gives us more mental space to work with. As a result, we can be more mentally and emotionally present when listening to feedback from others that conflicts with our self image. We can then make
more conscious choices on how to respond to that information, instead of jumping to an instinctive fight-or-flight response -- and possibly even use it for alchemical transformation in ourselves,
Of course, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Offering courses to people in no way guarantees that they will do the necessary internal work. As you say, "*I* must choose to take on the challenge for *me*". Leaders must live and embody the culture that they want to see in their organization.
Great reminder of the kind of growth that is within the reach of any of us, doesn't cost one cent, and has a transformative impact on ourselves, our organizations, and the world.
- Log in to post comments
June 27, 2011 at 9:27am
Kartik, thank you for your thoughtful, insightful response -- and my apologies for not replying sooner. And thanks, too, for the article on Google. It's a great example of something larger enterprises can do. I feel certain that those who choose to participate in such mindfulness training would be in a much better place to ask the core question I am posing -- and be open to "alchemical transformation" (I love these words!), serving both themselves and those around them.
But it is your last line I am particularly struck by -- the notion that the kind of growth we are discussing is within reach of any of us and is free. We can always take ourselves to the edges of our learning, and begin to ask the questions that will help us find our blind spots and see in more detail our impacts on others and the system. It really is free -- and that's a magnificent thought. While you "can't make the horse drink," the fact is that the water is always there, and it doesn't cost a thing to drink. I'm for more thirsty horses!
I so very much appreciate your company in this exploration.
- Log in to post comments
June 28, 2011 at 6:55am
Dan, I love the awareness you bring to this important issue - and opportunity. My impression is that we've done well at the top of the iceberg. Now, the real opportunity for progress lies beneath the surface, in our self-awareness and congruency, as you say. This is much harder work, but may be the true purpose of organizations. I heard Jeffrey Hollender, former CEO of Seventh Generation, give a talk a year or two ago at a conference on Corporate Social Responsibility. He said that the primary purpose of organizations is to grow the consciousness of the people within. This goal becomes even more compelling as we see that growing the consciousness of the people within is also what's needed to grow the business. Articles like yours help nudge us in that direction. Thanks!
- Log in to post comments
June 28, 2011 at 9:15am
Thank you so much for dropping by, Michelle!
I very much appreciate Hollender's point. "Growing consciousness" is a critical imperative, it seems, at every level, from person to planet, and, in line with this, I can't help but feel, like many already do, that genuinely reflective, influence-based leadership by everyone is the evolving replacement for traditional power-based, insular leadership by a few. It seems ironic to me, however, that we should talk about growing something that is often already there and untapped, as if it is always the other people who are unaware, who need consicousness, rather than first and foremost us who think we are aware, having missed our own blind spots entirely. In line with Hollender and your own beautifully expressed hack, the gentle nudge I'd love to offer is toward the small starting point at the very center of the spiral: If I can put down the defenses who have keep me as I am, get information that is disruptive to me, that causes me to deeply re-examine and reintegrate, and as a person grow into life itself, then perhaps I can help a group, an enterprise community, become truly alive, too. This to me seems to be both an ancient and modern dilemma, the central truly human innovation, if you will, the source of compassionate social change. If I and we can open that door, "management" can evolve. If not, we may change the form of the organization but miss the deeper beauty and genius of what's actually available to us all.
Again, Michelle, thank you so much for your wisdom and your compelling model for evolving awareness and change.
- Log in to post comments
October 14, 2011 at 12:25pm
Interesting effort to codify a very complex subject. As a psychiatrist and consultant/coach who has worked with many executives and professionals of all kinds over the years, my concern with your approach is that you are focusing on only one defense mechanism. By doing so you will miss the many other equally unconscious and powerful defenses that get in the way of leader's relationships and effectiveness in the work world. In addition, there are so many crucial psychological issues that contribute even to the defense of defensiveness. Ego-fragility, narcisism, perfectionism, anxiety, unresolved anger, inability to know or articulate internal states and emotions. The list goes on.
I commend your attempt but I feel your approach is too narrow. The question is more about how do you address complex psychological processes that interfere with good leadership within the work environment. Many coaches and coaching companies have moved away from addressing "derailing" behaviors for the very reason that most coaches do not have the knowledge or experience to address them or, even when they do, it is very challenging to do within the work environment.
I understand that you are trying to bring about positive change by at least addressing one common problem found in often egocentric and difficult leaders. And I do believe that you have created a good, non-threatening approach to get such leaders to be more self-reflective and tolerate the uncomfortable emotions and internal state that arise from being given negative feedback. I just caution that systemizing this type of work, especially when addressing just one defense, can often backfire as the underlying issues and other defenses that are not understood or addressed can lead to very superficial change at best and worsening behavior in other ways at worst.
I do agree with the need and I applaud your attempt to address this type of issue.
- Log in to post comments
October 14, 2011 at 2:18pm
Hello Sally -- Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on this hack. You've provided great perspective and feedback, and I'll continue to think through the "narrowness" issue you point out with this material. I sigh, totally agreeing that "there are so many crucial psychological issues that contribute even to the defense of defensiveness." This is really well-said and I've certainly seen elements of every condition on the list you've provided and that "goes on." So you are absolutely right -- my hack is an oversimplification and for someone of your experience may well seem a gloss, one that even could have a few negative side effects (which I've now got to think about how to mitigate! -- if you have some ideas, please let me know).
I do want to clarify that my target audience is not principally the group of "often egocentric and difficult leaders." I've had plenty of experience working with those folks over the years and get it that the issues may well be too complex -- I've certainly been thrown out of enough places to know. And yet as an organizational challenge, the issue of defensiveness persists systemically, not just within that smaller subset of egocentric leaders or even because of them, but nevertheless carried on as part of the larger background culture, in part as a set of assumptions about leadership itself. There doesn't even have to be an exemplar of that "difficult leader" for the problem to continue. At this level, the issue is about basically good leaders doing inadvertent or unconcious or underestimated things to trigger that background noise, in turn reducing creativity and causing others to go into compliance mode.
My model is a way to offer these other, more open leaders (the choir) a way to conceptualize their own experience and their impacts. So I'd like to think of this material as more about opening the door a crack, oversimplified as it is to look at just one defense as a starting point. My hope is that -- and perhaps I ought to strengthen the language of the hack in exactly this way -- reinforcing that the model can be an entry point to richer self-exploration, based on deepening curiousity about the issues I'm pointing to. That more accurately mirrors my experience working with this approach anyway -- I typically point out that there may be many interlocking wheel diagrams, for example, and examining one is just a start. But if this material is coming across as limited to only the toughest, most defensive leaders, and this is a one-stop fixit, then all that probably needs to be clarified and rewritten.
I do sense that many leaders are interested in the connection between leadership defensiveness and a less than productive workplace culture. These are people who are implicitly interested in the challenges of their own leadership style, and who want to know more how to leverage self-knowledge as part of a positive organizational change. Thanks again for writing -- you've given me much to think about!
- Log in to post comments
You need to register in order to submit a comment.