Change is a Self-Inflicted Wound

I shared my last blog entry with a client, a senior executive in a national company. He felt it would be helpful if I articulated the real business impacts of applying or not applying the approach I discussed. He also was curious about how companies designed to create the environment I proposed actually worked. Excellent questions, especially in light of the rest of his comments about his own company. And that may be a more meaningful way to illustrate my response.

I had asked what might give his company a new more sustainable future. He replied that it starts with a new vision of who we can be. And that is my own starting point in addressing his questions. I need to add that the concern he now has about his company is that the current leadership is not actually cooperating on a plan they all believe in and they appear unwilling or unable to to have an open and honest conversation about getting past that and being onboard together. And that, he surmises, is holding back the company.

What are the business impacts of NOT adopting my approach, he asks?

In this case it started with senior leaders going into a strategic planning workshop where they are asked at the onset to voice any and all concerns and leave no loose ends. Yet afterwards some admitted that they didn’t really agree with all that transpired but “why bother bringing it up, I’ll do what I want anyway”. And that was concerning the vision they crafted for the company! You could call that dishonesty, a lack of trust or simply lip service. The impact in this actual case evolved into “holding back the company”!

If you go back to my notion of a team as a group of individuals focused on common goals that they all care about and commit to for a shared purpose, then another impact is the lack of team, and perhaps worse, the illusion of one. The resultant workgroups act independent of a unified company vision and purpose and the momentum and power of true teams is lost. It is also unlikely to be found, since there persists an illusion that they are acting as a team, or as one aligned company for that matter.

There is also an apparent awareness on the part of these leaders that they are not all on board with one coherent vision or plan for the company, as personal agendas take priority over cooperation. The lack of openness and trust prevents a conversation about this from even taking place. So in the absence of clear leadership managers and employees focus on their day to day. Innovation, growth and long term sustainability are sacrificed and healthy debate about multiple perspectives and possibilities is avoided. Leadership remains reactive, not proactive. Employees don’t know what potential ideas they may have align with the future nor if they would even be given anything more than lip service. Or maybe it’s better to apply their potential in their own small pockets of the company, like their leaders model? Perhaps the biggest impact of operating this way is not so much on the day to day, business as usual, but on the future that will never emerge or risking becoming extinct when the competition innovates?

What are the business impacts if the DO adopt my approach, he asks?

There are numerous ways I can respond. I can start by continuing with the context above. In their strategic planning workshop a vision was created. Rather than the lip service that seemed to emerge (notwithstanding some positive direction that did have real value), a more open, honest and engaging (maybe even conflictual) conversation would have taken place. In this process they would clarify the company’s values, it’s purpose in the deepest sense, and the vision that naturally evolves from that. In many ways that is already present but bringing it into greater awareness and being intentional with it has huge value in driving actual decisions, actions and results. The opportunity then is to articulate it into a core ideology that represents the company’s principles and when integrated throughout the business this provides a sense of meaning and direction for the entire company. The leadership team would’ve emerged as a team. From there the company would be anything but held back!

Along those lines there are many areas where these “soft skills” or people orientation impacts business and the bottom line. There are also numerous organizations that have implemented some or most of these distinctions to varying degrees and quite successfully. Perhaps the most succinct way of making the point would be to reference a recent in depth study done at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSP) by what they called their Barrier Analysis team. You can reference senior NASA official Wayne Hale’s blog: Stifling Dissent at http://nasawatch.com/ which, if you read the comments, will point you to this link: http://www.opennasa.com/2009/01/30/pathways-beyond-the-barriers/ where a member of that team explains the Barrier Analysis team’s process and conclusions. In essence, this diverse interdisciplinary team found an organizational culture not unlike many seen in corporations, where the orientation I am advocating is absent. The illustrative video they shot mimics the experience of my own clients at NASA.

They concluded “We decided to focus on coming up with pathways from the barriers to the ideal states that would be highly actionable and have high impact by covering multiple issues. The four guiding concepts are: Servant Leadership, Freedom to Pursue New Ideas, Integrative Thinking, and Relevance.”

Leadership was characterized as “developing people, removing obstacles from their paths, and creating an environment where employees feel safe to push boundaries in the course of doing their jobs” and an emphasis on “identifying, selecting, and promoting leaders with team-forming and “people” skills”.

“Promoting the Freedom to Pursue New Ideas is based in the recognition that fresh ideas and different perspectives are vital to the evolution of an organization” and “Calculated risks are essential to push the state-of-the-art.”

“Integrative Thinking is about thinking globally and acting locally. Across systems, disciplines, and organizations, we can all focus our effort more effectively when we understand what context we operate in.”

“Thinking integratively also ties into encouraging new ideas by building teams of people from fields that you wouldn’t traditionally associate and changing the dynamics of how teams interact.”

They further state “the most critical context is our value to public and political stakeholders - Relevance.” This ties into my points about an organization’s values, purpose, principles and core ideology.

Lastly, they state “Ultimately, we believe barriers to inclusion and innovation can be overcome in four ways - leading through facilitation (not dictation), welcoming the pursuit of new ideas, understanding the context of what we do, and demonstrating relevance to the American people.”

They conclude stating that “where it will get really hard” however is getting buy-in from managers and employees who are on the other side of the senior management bubble and have become jaded by change efforts that continue to devolve into lip service.

I couldn’t help but recall the words of a man I greatly admire, Peter Block, a consultant/change agent, self-described organizational idealist, who states “change is a self-inflicted wound.” Peter is passionate about the notion that you don’t “get” people to do anything. That people will commit to what they really care about, and they need to be invited into that conversation. And they are free to decline or choose on purpose, because they will asked to make sacrifices for a greater good, for a possibility that is meaningful to them. And if they choose to create change, it will be with a true sense of ownership and commitment.

Those guiding concepts are not mandates or strategies. They are pieces of the possibility that constituents are invited to participate in. They are the beginning of the bigger conversation that surfaces dissent, makes room for real ownership and commitment, and brings the gifts of those on the margins into the center. And everyone will not be on board. But as Margaret Mead once said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

In conclusion, my client finally stated “ Why would a group like yours not be able to help?” and he proceeded with the analogy of a dysfunctional family brought into therapy where not everyone is open to help. He felt, with good reason, that this was the best analogy to describe most senior leaderships. As a former psychotherapist, this was not lost on me. However, therapy is about fixing or healing. What I do (coaching, for lack of a better professional descriptor) is about serving. Whereas fixing requires something (or someone) to be broken, the work I do is about creating a future that people care about. I never met a patient who didn’t show up as a request to be fixed. But when I started seeing them through this new lens, I discovered that every one of them had a possibility, a future, that they really did care about. I can’t say that they got better, because we stopped seeing that need. I can say that when invited with care, there was a future they were excited about living into and they came alive.

There are always some people who would rather be right than happy. But at least they could be given that choice. Peter Block calls that confronting people with their freedom. Joseph Campbell said you get “the call” and either take it or not (and it will come again). I call it being human. And as Peter told me more than once “this too shall pass.”