jump to navigation

Identity switch October 3, 2008

Posted by rhoeboer in change, empowerment, leadership.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

“You are the choices you make.” I don’t know who said it anymore, but it rings so very true. The choices you make lead to actions, lead to results and lead to experience that together with the success of your actions defines who you are. If you do it right, your life will be a continuous process of improvement, an incremental series of steps that improve the person you are in any area of your life. Be it in relationships, business or physical prowess.

If you want to make choices that benefit you and give you the opportunity to improve your life, one question needs to be answered before you can start making choices and act upon them. You need to ask yourself the question: “Who am I?” For without a foundation to build upon, how are you going to make choices that benefit you not only in the short term, but also in the long term? How are you going to evaluate your choices? By what standard will they be successful? For that you need to know what you stand for, what values you attach to living your life and use these as a measuring stick for your actions.

Wait a minute? My choices lead to who I am, but I need to know who I am to make valid choices? This is what is called a conundrum, the famous chicken and the egg question. The statement in the first paragraph suggests that the choices you make lead to who you are, while the question on who you are needs to be answered before you can make valid choices.

Solving it is relatively easy if we take it to a higher level of abstraction. In this case that of intention. The intention of the question in paragraph two is the right one, and by reframing it, we retain the intention while solving the conundrum. It shouldn’t be “Who am I?” It should be two questions, the first being “Who am I at this moment?” and the second being “Who do I want to be?”. “Who am I?” suggests something fixed, something that remains constant for the rest of your life. It excludes change, since change is the opposite of remaining constant. If you always remain the same, you act in a very consistent way, and consistency is the most valued trait a person can have in our society. If someone is consistent, he can be trusted and depended upon. But, what if circumstances change and the consistency of our behavior starts to be the cause of our failure to make the right choices? One definition of insanity is as follows: ”Insanity is to over and over repeat the same behavior to get new results”. Let’s not go down the road of insanity and claim that who we are is a fixed thing that never changes. We all know the fallacy of that statement.

I suggest that in order to answer both questions and thereby setting up our identity, it is crucial to know what we value in life, how we perceive our surroundings and the effects of our actions. The values we adhere to as an individual are a much more solid base for our decision making. Our behavior may change when circumstances change, but the values we strive for rarely do. Off course even your values may change over time, but it takes many years and in most cases a traumatic experience.

To know what we value in life takes introspection and reflection on our behavior. In this process, the feedback of others we trust is essential. Not only in recognizing what we value, but also in checking whether our behavior is consistent with these values. To get a clear picture of what happens around us and our impact on these surroundings, we also need more than one point of view. We need people providing us feedback through different ways of perceiving what happens. People with different world views, but who share most of our values, so we can communicate, collaborate and achieve a multidimensional (integrated) picture of what’s going on. To grow and become more and more the person we want to be and can be, we clearly need to be part of a group (team) of people we trust. Trust to help us grow through acting together and through providing feedback on our behavior and actions.

As a team of different people with different identities, the team itself will have its own identity based on the values and the goal its members share. An identity that can be made much more clear to the individual members and thereby provide a base for the team’s choices and bring focus to its efforts. In the end the team is the choices it makes and for that it needs to know its own identity.

Communicating meaning September 5, 2008

Posted by rhoeboer in empowerment, leadership.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

Communication. Let us first start with defining it for the purpose of this article; Communication is the process used to convey information between people. A pre-requisite for communication is a common language that all parties involved understand. This is where it becomes tricky. What is a common language? Is it the language we speak in the country we live in? Is it the language we speak as experts in our field? Is it the language we use when explaining stuff to our children? Or, is it the body language we use to express how we feel? Depending on context any mix of the above is used to communicate between people. What we at Crossing Signals like to add to the mix is the language of metaphors.

Why metaphors? For the simple reason that when people use certain words to express themselves, others will have different values attached to those words and since we are not aware of the differences, miscommunication is almost unavoidable. Metaphors can shape our perceptions and actions without our ever noticing them. A very interesting book on this subject is ‘Metaphores we live by’ by George Lakoff.

Let me give you an example. We have a group of four where one man stands up to express his vision on what needs to be done. When he uses the word vision, it is about new ideas, concepts and possibilities. When hearing the word vision, the second person expects to hear about a new structure and rules to adhere to that will improve his situation. The third expects to hear about concrete results to aim for that can be tested and validated based on facts. The fourth expects a story about values that can be achieved by working together with kindred spirits. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that these four will have a serious challenge in integrating and consolidating their wishes into a common purpose, shared goals, and dare I say it, Vision.

The same goes for many other words we use as metaphors of values we want to reach or aspire to. Truth, justice, respect, honor all are things that are perceived differently given the context you are in. “If my daughter were to be seen speaking to a man that is not her brother or her intended husband, my honor is compromised and I am justified in killing her.” Unimaginable in Western culture, but a very clear example of the same word meaning very different things depending on context. Within teams this is off course a much more subtle process, as my example on vision showed. A process that is rarely if ever addressed because it is simply not acknowledged or brought up for fear of it taking too long and delivering too little. But just imagine if we could create a vision that is grounded in a solid structure, is supported by facts and is based on and delivers values a target audience will aspire to? This would be the ideal result of collaboration between all four people in my example in the previous paragraph. It would bring an integrated vision that has something for everyone without the dreaded compromises of one dimensional approaches.

At Crossing Signals, this is one of the most important things we do. Make transparent to each team member what other members mean when they use the words (metaphors) they do! As a result, we let everybody contribute with what he or she is good at, even excels at. As a result we help teams create integrated multi-dimensional solutions that add value to all people in their target audience. We create an understanding in the teams we work with: the subtle differences in the meaning and value people address to words are essential to creating a common language and provide a solid base for trust and respect. We provide feedback on the values and worldviews underlying people’s choice of words. This in turn increases transparency, provides a clear road to a common purpose and shared goals, and improves the chances of working in your strength with others who do the same. As said, this allows everybody to do what he or she does best and to create ideal solutions grounded in a common purpose, instead of trying to be good at everything and ending up with mediocre compromises. It gives people the means to be authentic, unique and happy in the understanding that they are adding value to a team by being themselves. There is no better motivator. What is more, it helps overcome one of the most important obstacles for effective and creative teamwork, you like to be held accountable for something you are good at.

To affinity and beyond; Paradoxical Leadership April 27, 2007

Posted by rhoeboer in change, empowerment, innovation, leadership.
add a comment

Peter Drucker said: “Management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things.” Doing things right is easily measured. All you need to do is define criteria for efficiency, cost reduction, etc. and put a reward structure in place for meeting these criteria. Doing the right things is another matter entirely. There are no easily measurable criteria that I know of; the bottom line seems to be the only one in use. The quintessential question for leadership few managers ask themselves is: “What are the right things to do and am I doing them?” Answering this question and actually doing the right things is what sets leaders apart. The knack of knowing what things to do and acting upon this knowledge is not given to everybody.

There also is this other part to leadership. The decisions about what to do cannot be delegated; someone has to make them, on his/her own. If they are the right decisions: you are revered as a champion, if they are not, you are likely to fall hard. Either way you are in a very lonely position. There are plenty of choices about what to do in today’s world, and the risks involved in actually choosing and acting upon the choices made are continuously increasing. That is why we have so very few leaders, not many men or women would take the burden of today’s complex choices and increasing risks and bear them alone.

Let us go back to management. There is an old saying: “If all you have is a hammer, all your problems become nails.” Let me add: “If you are in a hole, stop digging!” Most managers today seem to combine the two and are only using shovels, so all their problems are converted to needing bigger holes. They are getting rewarded because they meet all criteria of good management, but they’re not being judged on doing the right things. For the sake of space I will not go into examples. You know what I mean, and if you don’t, just open any business oriented newspaper or magazine and look at the amount of money that is being rewarded for shoddy work. (Enron, Parmalat, Ahold come to mind). At some point in time digging is not the best thing to be doing, filling the hole might have been a better idea.

We recently got a request for helping a department of a big consumer electronics firm to adapt its management style to what its employees expect, thereby empowering them and making optimal use of their unique talents and abilities. Different cultures were also part of the equation, but for the sake of convenience I will leave that part out of this picture. Most people associate management style with finding your affinity as a manager, bringing out the ‘you’ in your behaviour as it were. They believe that congruent behaviour (authentic and predictable) will help you develop a style that is effective and suits both you and your employees. If style where such a simple thing as being friendly, being tough or being thoughtful, or any other one dimensional trait, there would be a point to all this albeit a very limited one. But consider this: all your employees want you to be friendly to them. They also want you to be tough on people who step out of line. Come to think of it all your employees want you to think things through, for them.

Unfortunately life is not this simple, being everything at the same time to everybody is impossible. In our world the context changes continuously and so should the accompanying management style. Every context requires a different approach and so does every employee you have. The question is not whether your management style fits you, but whether it fits your context. Management style is not about you it is about how you respond to what is happening around you. Context is superior in the relation you have with it, reality drives all events, so don’t let your ego get in the way.

Now we come to the central point of this piece. To us Management style is context dependent and is about your ability to show the right style given the context you are in. Every individual has certain affinities, preferences for dealing with situations. Some managers like to control a situation whereas other managers would rather provide the freedom to act. These managers do see when a context is better dealt with through control or freedom, but under pressure they will act according to their affinities and go with what they feel instead of what they know they should be doing. The point is, that your natural affinities will make you effective in one situation, thereby successful, but those very same affinities might prove disastrous in another situation. If the context requires control and the person’s first inclination is to give people freedom . . . . . Well you can paint the picture yourself. The wisdom in leadership is in understanding these two things: is your natural affinity (‘style’) effective for this context, and if not, can you produce the appropriate style or do you need someone else? Someone that is preferably already a member of your team!

This is where Paradoxical leadership comes in, recognizing how to act given your context and who to put in charge given this context. As the manager of a team of people, you should always keep an eye out for people’s egos taking on contexts that should be dealt with by those better equipped to deal with this context. That is why you need to know the affinities of the team of people you are leading and let them deal with contexts they have affinities for. Not only does this solve the “It’s lonely at the top” aspect of leadership – you are delegating your leadership according to who is best suited to deal with the situation – it also solves the earlier mentioned department’s empowerment issue and the use of its team’s unique talents and abilities. Three flies in one stroke!

Paradoxical leadership is about reflection on what is happening around you and acting accordingly, even if your actions seem to contradict earlier actions. This reflection is much easier if done with a diverse group of people, as is the subsequent delegation process of leadership. There are very few leaders who do the right thing in any context, because the individual that sees any context for what it is, is a very unique individual indeed. Under pressure we all revert to our natural affinity, which means that most people will use their hammer even when their problem is a hole. The solution in this case is very simple; build a team of people with different affinities that has the ability to choose and adapt as a whole!

Let us take a start-up as an example. First you need the freedom to generate ideas, structure them into concepts, package them into products that you can sell, sell them and make money. Second, you need to put rational goals in place to grow your business. Third you need to set up internal processes to improve efficiency, control the flow of money and manage the risks. Fourth, if you grow big enough, you need to support your employees with career opportunities, training, et cetera. The first is about freedom and focus on the market, the second is about control and focus on the market, the third is about control and internal focus and the fourth is about freedom and internal focus. The challenge is, that though these are phases, certainly by the time you reach the fourth they all happen at the same time. Paradoxical leadership is not only phase dependent, that would make it easy, it is about adapting to the challenges you meet when confronting them all at the same time.
Back to the manager stuck in a hole. Why not help him gather teams around him with the ability to look at the same situation from different viewpoints, with different tools to adapt and in the process give him an opportunity to continuously adapt his leadership to the given context? In other words make a paradoxical leader out of him!