This is a fascinating article. At one point, he argues,
“There’s another massive psychological roadblock in place here. Humans are programmed to not question authority, Dr. Lubit says. Men are especially hierarchical, particularly when they work in organizations made up largely of other men. To McQueary, Sandusky was an authority figure, which may explain why he didn’t go directly to the police.”
This new study looks at how a combination of “some authority” with low perceived status can encourage behaviors that are rude, demeaning, or abusive.
The title says it all…
Whether you read Nilofer Merchant’s article or not, I think the title offers us a golden nugget of advice. What truly impacts your ability to execute a strategy with success?
Unfortunately, many strategic planning processes in the world today are more likely to be intellectual exercises to develop neat ideas on a piece of paper.
I’ve come to believe that strategic thinking and strategy development are vital to an organizations success. Strategic planning, in the traditional sense, is not so helpful.
What I’ve found is that strategic plans have the greatest impact if the process to develop it and the process to monitor it raise the ability of the group to question assumption; strengthens the groups ability to identify and manage unsolvable problems; and strengthens communication between members of the organization, while creating a coherent plan to guide the work.
I think Gary Hamel said it best, “The real leverage is not in creating the ‘right strategy’ but in increasing a [leader’s] capability to surface and test the assumptions behind the strategies they advocate.”
Here is a juicy tidbit from Merchant’s article that highlights the impact to this elusive and mysterious thing called “culture:”
Do We Trust Each Other?…A team I was recently working with reminded me of 6-year-olds playing soccer, where every team member simply surrounds the issue much like a team of kids surrounds the ball. They then travel en masse, afraid to move away from the proverbial “ball.” In this culture, no one owns a position on the field. This “we’re all in it together” cultural norm is certainly egalitarian, but it doesn’t support specialization, scale, or accountability. I worry that as this team grows, and when they’re not all in the same room, they will fail. When they are huddling, what they are signaling is that they don’t know how to trust one another to do their unique part. They — like many teams — simply don’t know how to “let go” to and with others, thus risking their ability to scale results.
Who Defines the Ending?
Election Season: Reflections on Change in a Democracy
In this interview Ann Caton, partner at Potomac Group, talks about the dynamics and impact that the health care debate caused. What she shares can help us understand the continued ripple effects that are still playing out today. She discusses the pitfalls in how the health care debate was approached in terms of process and communication. In 3.5 minutes, she succinctly covers issues that are alive in today’s current events, and certainly in the dynamics of an approaching election season. There is a juicy piece near 2min 15sec.
It would take a systems level thinker like Ann to bring together the theoretical “transitions” model from William Bridges (which developed around individual and organizational level change) and combine it with large scale societal change and a political process that is still unfolding around health care.
In “transition” language, the Obama administration missed the first two phases needed in a change effort like this: ending and neutral zone. Instead, they went straight for the 3rd stage: new beginning.
Ann’s analysis to this national level change process is equally applicable to change efforts in our own organizations. Namely, that people believe new efforts start with beginnings, but they don’t. There start with endings.
You might ask, how do new effort start with endings?
What Ann tells us, is that “change” and “transition” are different. If we don’t understand the difference, we’re really missing the boat. “Change” describes the situation or event - moving to a new site, the new reporting system or database, hiring a new manger, or in this case, launching a new healthcare system. “Transition,” however, refers to the psychological process that takes place and can be triggered by these events. It’s the process of internalizing and coming to terms with the new situation.
Transition takes place in a 3-phase process that people go through as they internalize and come to terms with a new situation:
1) Ending – letting go of old ways & old identity
2) Neutral zone – the old is gone but the new isn’t fully operational
3) New beginning – people develop new identity, experience new energy & sense of purpose
We need leaders on the political stage and in our organizations who not only identify the necessary changes that need to take place, but also how to manage transitions. Even if we support the change, we might have difficulty with the transition process. This is where good leaders and managers can play a role.
Ann points out that the Obama administration skipped the first two steps and as a result opened the door to the opposition to define what had ended, in this case the narrative was that “our America” had ended. The process was open to this kind of backlash, that could be anticipated and tapped to provide energy for a stronger outcome if there could be an operationalized understanding of the transition process.
Have you ever left a powerful retreat or meeting, where it seemed like things were finally going to change around your organization, only to realize a few weeks later that nothing has changed. Here is a 3-minute suggestion from Rick Maurer on how to avoid that…
This is a wonderful and quick article to read mid-day. A colleague introduced me to it and I thought it was worth sharing here.
It takes a long view, at one point looking at Puritan values in U.S. culture and how that has contributed to a sense that fun=not work and worry=work.
Here is my favorite paragraph:
“Worry isn’t work. Being stressed out isn’t work. Anxiety isn’t work. Entertaining a sense of impending doom isn’t work. Incessant internal verbal punishment isn’t work. Indulging the great unknown fear in your own mind isn’t work. Hating yourself isn’t work.”
The article reminds me of a line from Jack Jacobs, a friend and colleague that developed Real Time Strategic Change. In thinking about a major change effort that was coming up on the horizon, he asked, “if this were to actually be fun, how would you do it?”
I hope you enjoy this article as much as I did. If you have stories of struggle or tips on how to embrace the fun and pleasure in your work, please share.
The Sustaining Organizing report is out. The report assesses how the economic downturn has impacted community organizing groups. The highly visible closing of ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), may be eclipsed by the less visible struggles faced by smaller community organizing groups. These are the groups that do their work in church basements and living rooms, lifting up community voices on critical social and economic issues facing their neighborhoods. They may be working on affordable housing, increasing access to medical care, fighting for basic public works like plumbing and clean water, creating community centers, or lowering the dropout rate through innovative approaches that create a more robust democracy. These are the groups that, away from the national eye, are making our neighborhoods healthier, safer, and more productive work environments.
The Sustaining Organizing report was released by the Data Center and the National Organizers Alliance (NOA). These two groups are well positioned to tackle this unique and important research. The Data Center supports grassroots organizing through strategic research and training. The National Organizers Alliance is a membership based group that brings together community, labor, and cultural organizers.
Some of the findings include:
Even with these tough realities, 80% of those surveyed reported that they have maintained or increased their programmatic work. Which leads to some startling health statics on staff members that are buried toward the end of the report.
Of staff members surveyed
For small, entrepreneurial community-based groups, this might be expected and even a normal part of the ebb and flow of the work. However, 78% of organizations that participated in the survey are over 10 years old. This wasn’t a survey of start-ups or recently founded organizations. These are what would be considered relatively stable groups. 46% have budgets between $500,000 - 1,000,000+.
The report isn’t able to attribute the poor health figures entirely to the economic downturn. The authors suggest that this is business as usual, stating, “it is generally true that this tends to be the nature of organizing work. A veteran organizer of 40 years noted that that’s how it’s always been.”
It seems that the data is indicating that workers in these organizations are overworked and experiencing chronic stress, fatigue, and loss of sleep. This sounds like a vexing issue and one that deserves dialogue and exploration. How is the stress and fatigue being experienced by those in the field? How is this impacting their health and well-being? How is it impacting the development of strategy or the execution of programs?
A lot of groups get themselves into hot water over email. It’s not just tech novices; it’s the tech savvy that can be the most at risk of missing when email has changed from being a supporting tool, to a derailing or destructive force.
For groups separated by distance it’s important to recognize the limitations of email.
I’m noticing that even those that are geographically close are operating as if they are spread far apart (ex: spending a day emailing back and forth with someone sitting next to you).
A new study by Kevin Rockmann and Gegory Northcraft, looked at the issue. They put groups in charge of a complex task. Some groups worked by email, while others worked by video conferencing and in person meetings. They discovered that those who met in person had the highest level of trust and effective cooperation. Those using email were the least able to collaborate and accomplish their job.
What does this mean to you? Think about the most important, critical work that you’re on right now. How are you connecting with others in your group? If you’re connected primarily over email, you might question if that’s the best format.
Email isn’t going to go away. For groups that are using email as a key communication tool, I suggest developing norms. What norms make the most sense will vary greatly depending on the work you’re trying to accomplish and those that are involved. To get you started, here are some examples adapted from The Distance Manager by Kimball Fisher and Mareen Duncan Fisher:
There are lots of clues that you’re over using email and under utilizing personal contact. Some include having trouble staying on the same page with others, not feeling very energized, or blood pressure rising when you’re reading/typing an email. One of the greatest telltale signs is that you’re fighting over email. If you’re interested in and want skillful dialogue, you won’t get that from email.
I’d like to do more writing on the topic of virtual work groups. I’m curious, what are you noticing? Do you see a similar pattern, or something entirely different? What are other issues to consider in long-distance management of groups?
Last week I posted a piece on mergers for community based organizations. Priscilla Hung, Executive Director of the Grassroots Institute for Fundraising Training (GIFT), replied with a wonderful resource she wrote after GIFT went through their own merger. The article talks about the costs, difficult to measure staff hours, and impact to finances and fundraising.
Priscilla dives into seven lessons learned through their experience and of two other organizations they interviewed:
1. It’s your work that’s important, not the organization
2. Be honest and up front about your reasons for merging
3. Merging won’t make a financially unstable organization more stable
4. Fundraising culture matters just as much as fundraising practice
5. Notify donors and funders in a timely way
6. Fundraise for your merger
7. The merger will take longer than you think
There are very few merger resources that speak directly to the needs of small community-based organizations and nongovernmental groups. Through hands on work
with mission-driven clients Potomac Group has developed a merger model and checklist. Offered below is an article that will help readers understand and prepare for the mechanics of a merger.
Some of the common myths or misconceptions talked about in the article include:
- Overestimating cost savings. So many groups already have administrative infrastructures that are below their needs. A merger actually increases costs.
- Merging two struggling or vulnerable organizations with an unexamined belief it will result in one stronger organization.
- Thinking the hard work is all done prior to the merger and “letting it ride” after the legal merger. There is a lot to be done pre-merger to be sure. The post-merger work, if not properly attended to, can drastically reduce the effectiveness of the organization and in some cases topple it.
- Using a merger to avoid answering the question, “should we close?”
Potomac Group is intending on releasing a series of articles over time that touch on the hidden or less covered aspects of mergers. These include: preparing change leaders, group dynamics, managing emotions, and the process of letting go. Rather than being at the margins, these issues are at the heart of a successful merger process. Until then, enjoy this article and please do comment with your own experience and thoughts on the issue…
First, groups considering a merger are often looking to reap savings from combining administrative overhead (office space, bookkeeping, training, copier service, tech support, contract / consulting support, etc.). Although this is a benefit that most groups seek, small community-based groups run a particular risk of putting themselves in harm’s way by overestimating potential savings. That’s because small groups engaged in service, advocacy and organizing efforts typically operate with limited budgets to address unlimited needs, and routinely under resource their infrastructure…Click here for Full Article
Groups and Leaders Under Stress
Organizations and leaders under stress tend to find fixes for the moment and focus on momentary survival. This 5-minute segment is the last of a four part series. Earl Braxton, Ph.D. shares his thinking on leadership and Kurt Lewin’s influence on our understanding of it. I’m here to tell you, I think this man knows what he’s talking about.
Common characteristics of groups under stress:
Common characteristics of managers (or leaders by other names) under stress:
Earl also shares what leaders or consultants need to provide in order to support those under stress:
Thank you to Earl Braxton for his thoughtful analysis, to Joseph Lennox for hosting, Brenda Jones for facilitating and to the Lewin Center for Research and Social Justice that convened this forum and is doing important work in the world.
Polarities and Paradoxes
This is the 3rd installment of a 4 part series on Kurt Lewin’s influence on understanding leadership.
In this 3-minute piece Earl Braxton takes a look at polarities. For those of you who follow my posts and the work on this subject, you might find it interesting how he defines and addresses polarities: “What seems like two separate and opposite phenomenon, are separate manifestations of the same continuum.” Examples include love and hate, up and down, individual and group, strong and weak, hot and cold.
Earl thinks of polarities as gifts from the universe. However, one of the risks contained within this gift is that we can “…get sucked in one or the other and lose track of the other.” We might forget that we have choices that include the full range on the continuum. For example, Earl argues that when you are angry or hurt, that is a choice and there are other options sitting there, waiting for us. We might get so focused on hate, that we forget we have a choice and can embrace the other side of the polarity, which is love.
Never Enough Time
This is the second part of a four part series on Kurt Lewin’s (1890-1947) influence on our understanding of leadership. Many consider him to be the founder of social psychology, group dynamics, and organization development. As a professor at MIT, he was the first person to coin the term “action research.”
In this 4-minute piece Early Braxton, Ph.D. continues his talk on Lewin and about how the speed of complexity and change is increasing at a rate that outpaces the capacity of our brains. He states, “So, when you hear so many people talking about how stressed out they are, how tired they are, how fatigued, and how much they keep doing…if you listen to people in organizations saying there isn’t enough time, they aren’t lying. There isn’t, there just isn’t.”
He argues that to deny this is to decrease our effectiveness and our capacity to see. To accept this means then that we need to change how we do our work. This includes 1) slowing down the pace 2) creating spaces for reflection and 3) avoid trying to fix something before understanding it.
In one analogy he gives, Earl points out that if a car is going 90mph, what you see outside that window is different than when the car is going 40mph. It is too late to see and understand the landscape once you pass it. If you keep going at that speed you will accumulate the things you don’t know that much faster.
Earl is a psychologist specializing in transformational thinking and the management of change in high risk / high stress organizations. He briefly outlines a process for leaders to assist in this world of increased complexity and change. At the top of that list is that if you are to lead others, you must first know how to lead yourself.
Lewin’s Influence on Leadership
This recorded talk is the first of a four part series from a great evening I had a few weeks ago at a forum pulled together by the Lewin Center for Research and Social Justice. About 25 individuals came together at the home of Lennox Joseph, Ph.D. to hear a talk given by Earl Braxton, Ph.D. and facilitated by Brenda Jones, Ph.D. The food, the company, and the conversation was just what I needed as I moved into the New Year.
Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, and was the first person to use the term group dynamics. His work has a wide ranging impact on everything from psychology to social justice movements. For instance, Michael Jacoby Brown, in his book points out that the field of community organizing draws heavily on Lewin’s work, “who revolutionized the theory and practices of building groups…and had a wide interest in racial and ethnic justice.”
In this first installment, you will hear Earl talking about Lewin’s interest in unions, understanding systems and systemic change approaches, and field theory. Earl then touches on organizations in trauma, an issue he has written about and says is sometimes kept “quiet.” Influenced by Lewin, Earl sees these broken systems not in terms of their fallacies and dysfunction, but rather as entities with a temporary wound.
Recently in a conversation with someone, they pointed me to Quint Studer and a model for understanding how to have different conversations with “high, middle, and low” performers in organizations. Studer is perhaps best known for his work in hospital and health care settings.
I have to admit two things that came up for me in reading this article. First, I have a difficult time labeling someone a “low” performer. Interestingly, I don’t have any difficulty naming someone a “high” performer. I think this comes from wanting to see the best in people and wanting to understand larger system dynamics that might be impacting individuals and their ability or interest in performing at higher levels. Second, I found this article helpful, particularly in how to talk with those that are performing at a lower level.
Studer suggests that:
“In Low-performer conversations do not start the meeting out on a positive note. Use the DESK approach:
Because low performers are so skilled at excuses, guilt, and indignation, these conversations can be difficult for managers. Be calm, objective, and clear about consequences if performance does not improve by a date you specify. Then follow through and take action.”
Not to be missed in this article is how to support those who are middle and high performers. Sometimes high performers do not get much support, or it’s an after thought, precisely because they are doing so well. Studer writes:
“In high-performer conversations re-recruit your best performers by giving specific positive feedback about what they do well, their accomplishments, and examples of positive attitude. Share information about where the organization is going, and ask if there is anything you can do for them to make their job better.”
Read the full article by clicking on one of the links above or here.
Notes and interviews from the field on organization development, management, and group dynamics.
