The Enemy Is Groupthink

The unfolding of the recent financial crisis brought to the surface, yet again, the question of failed leadership. This time, it is not just the “usual suspects”, such as politicians who can be blamed; it is financial wizards, experts on risk and markets, people who are supposed to have vast IQs and great skills. Admired leaders in their fields. How did this happen?

Writing on the lack of leadership shown by Wall Street leaders during the current financial crisis, Steven Pearlstein (Washington Post, 12 December 2008) suggested that in any given situation, there needs to be someone who is able to follow the famous example of the child who made everyone see the emperor had no clothes. He accused business executives and financial market mavens for indulging in self-delusion, and, in some cases, averting their gaze, playing along a dangerous game without using their inside knowledge and their judgment to provide timeous warning of the meltdown which engulfed American and world markets.

No wonder, then, that the investors and customers who lost their money and employees who lost their jobs want the same bad outcomes – or punishment - to happen to those leaders who seem to avoid taking full responsibility for the debacle. After all, childish well-used excuses such as “he started first” and “everyone does it” can hardly hold. In this very serious matter, where executives were entrusted with the hugely responsible task of looking after people’s livelihood and companies existence, both very serious adult responsibilities, kindergarten behaviour is barely acceptable.

But being the non-conforming leader, the one who is first to call attention to the fact that everything is not hanky-dory or to point out to a giant system, particularly one which seems to produce gargantuan profits, that it must radically change – is not an easy challenge. It is, arguably, one of the trickiest challenges facing leaders. It means, simply, effective avoidance of groupthink. It requires a stance of always questioning, and of being bold enough to be prepared to be the odd one out, withstand pressures and accept unpopularity, and lead executives throughout your organisation to do the very same.

It may be useful to unpack the concept of groupthink. The concept, clearly drawing on Orwell’s famous “doublethink”, was coined by William H. Whyte Jr. in an eponymous in Fortune magazine back in March 1952. He wrote that, ‘‘Groupthink is becoming a national philosophy... We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity -- it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalised conformity -- an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.” Whyte accused the trained elite of Washington's ''social engineers'' for holding this very notion.

In the 1970s, psychologist Irving Janis developed his Groupthink model, followed by others, such as Robert S. Baron of the University of Iowa, who explored the model and conducted extensive research on it. More than 30 years of such research has shown groupthink to be a very common and widespread phenomenon. So much so, that Baron suggested naming it the “Ubiquity model of groupthink”, claiming its causal factors are highly prevalent: consensus seeking, group polarization, out-group stereotyping and the suppression of dissent. One of today’s accepted definitions of Groupthink is “A deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment in a group that results from an excessive desire to reach consensus.” *

The concept was used in the American media around the Pig Bay crisis of the 1960s, making a comeback in 2004 over the controversial Iraq War. For example, Senator Pat Roberts, chair of Senate Intelligence, told the Washington press corps, ''that the intelligence community was suffering from what we call a collective groupthink . . . [which] also extended to our allies and to the United Nations.''

If we are to learn from past mistakes, then surely, the knowledge of the danger of groupthink should always spur leaders to continuously seek to elicit the opposing view from their organisations. They should know how suffocating groupthink is to proper decision-making, not to mention creativity, the engine of competent competition. It certainly should be practiced by politicians. Yet, this is clearly not the case.

Aspiring leaders in any field, business, politics or civil society, should pay close attention to this aspect of their adult responsibility as leaders. It is their role to take the lead by promoting and encouraging, continually, and without fail, an organisation that rewards out-of-the-box thinking, counters groupthink approaches and courageous “Nahshonism”. Nahshon, a biblical figure from the Book of Exodus, was the first bold person who led the Israelites when they hesitated at the shores of the Red Sea, while fleeing bondage in Egypt. The fear of their fierce enslavers was great, but, at least, it was familiar. The sea was a fear of the unknown. Nahshon did not hesitate, and as he jumped in, the water parted. He became a symbol of daring to lead. In many institutions, the Nahshons get punished. They get nicknamed “troublemakers” or even “Whistleblowers”. Listening to those people, always assuming they may be that child that sees the naked emperor is often the key to better decision-making.

Many very charismatic and forceful leaders have no idea that they are intimidating others from airing views that differ from the perceived consensus, or the leader’s perceived view. Powerful leaders must make it their business to counter their tendency to lead from the front, and always shine. For some leaders the idea of adopting a statesperson or conductor approach instead of a partisan virtuoso one, is difficult.

A useful comparative definition of leadership and management is provided by Stephen Covey in his best-seller Seven Habits of Highly Successful People. Trying to explain how “Management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things, he describes the managers as the guys with the machetes working their way through the growth in the jungle. The leader’s job is to climb on the tallest tree, take in the whole scene and shout:”Hey, guys, wrong jungle!” No one shouted that the jungle was the wrong one, and the ultimate groupthink was taking place, therefore, unhinged.

*(Glossary of the Social Psychology Department at Richmond University).

Note - I also published this piece in Huddlemind.net

The image is Penelope Aitken's oil on canvas, Group Think, 2004.

Obama: Leadership Lessons

Barack Obama’s presidential victory in the United States was a historic moment which no doubt will ignite the interest of those involved in the study of leadership. Obama’s win is an object lesson in this overcrowded field.
What people saw in Obama was a better future for themselves and for their children, rather than someone who simply laid out programmes, however sensible and thoughtful. How he plans to deal with health care, taxes, education, Iraq and American foreign policy or tackle the biggest financial crisis in a century had, in my view, very little to do with his election.
He was elected because he embodies the words of another great inspirational leader – Mahatma Ghandi: “You must be the change you wish to see in the world”. He did that by merely daring to stand for the presidency.

Of course, Obama had a very inspirational presence and he was effortlessly articulate in his delivery. He managed to draw successfully a vision of America, and of its possible future. His words and bearing created resonance. But more than anything else it is how he said it, and his mere audacity to hope and to follow up that hope with action that ensured his improbable election. He dared challenge the old and the known, and not listen to fears and anxieties. He dared claim for himself the right to run for a job that people thought he was not ready for, and to which he should not aspire. People had said to him that America was not ready for a black president, that he was too junior a Senator, that he was too young and that the Clintons’ mighty machine was just too powerful. In the face of all that and more, he did not falter, showing an incredible ability to follow though, pursue his own dream and his self-belief in the mantra, which became his campaign slogan, “yes, we can”. He could and he did: by employing that self-belief, combined with extremely well-disciplined hard work and steely perseverance, all of which were backed up by competence and great team work.

Peter Senge, author of the influential book “The Fifth Discipline”, which was identified by the Harvard Business Review (1997) as one of the seminal management books of the past 75 years, introduced the concept of personal mastery as a discipline necessary in order to lead what he termed “a learning organization”. Personal mastery involves:
“Continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively…It goes beyond competence and skills, although it involves them…Mastery is seen as a special kind of proficiency… People with a high level of personal mastery live in a continual learning mode. They never ‘arrive’. Sometimes, language, such as the term ‘personal mastery’ creates a misleading sense of definiteness, of black and white. But personal mastery is not something you possess. It is a process. It is a lifelong discipline. People with a high level of personal mastery are acutely aware of their ignorance, their incompetence, their growth areas. And they are deeply self-confident. Paradoxical? Only for those who do not see the ‘journey is the reward”’ (Senge,1990)

A necessary skill in gaining self mastery is ‘self-control’. This attribute has been nominated as one of the components critical to displaying high emotional intelligence, in particular what practitioners call ‘self-regulation’. Self-control is defined as keeping disruptive emotions and impulses in check. In this spirit the staffers closest to the newly elected US President dubbed him, during the campaign, as “No-Drama Obama”. (This is indeed somewhat exceptional: political campaigns tend to be the scene of high drama and enormous adrenaline rushes which come from the great emotional involvement of both the candidate and his or her team.)

Another critical aspect en route to personal mastery is a great level of self-awareness, comprising in terms of emotional intelligence framework, ‘emotional awareness’ –i.e. recognising one’s emotions and their effects; ‘accurate self-assessment’- knowing one’s strengths and limits; and ‘self-confidence’: in other words, a strong sense of one’s self-worth and capabilities.

Consider Gregory Craig, a Washington lawyer with a long record of working with powerful politicians and a one-time member of the Clinton administration: his experience made him tired of “partisan bickering” (according to an article in Newsweek, on 17 November 2008). He yearned to recapture the idealism of his student days in the 60s. He was impressed with Obama when he met him some years ago as a young Illinois Senate candidate. This prompted him to read his books, “The Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams of My Father”. He said the books “floored me…in my judgment, he showed more insight and maturity than Bill Clinton at the age of 60 in terms of understanding himself”. This is but one of many examples. Another insight into Obama’s self-knowledge was on display when he was asked early in the campaign whether he was intimidated about being the leader of the free world? He replied, “Who wouldn’t be?”

Being able to really listen, understand the signals and messages people give you, and then find a way to resonate with them is another, crucial piece, in the Emotional Intelligence jigsaw puzzle. An example of that can be found in a story told by Obama himself about how, during a disappointingly small meeting in South Carolina early in his campaign, there was a black woman in the audience, who was getting the crowd to chant, responsively, “Fired up!” “Ready to go”. Thereafter he used this to motivate his crowds with great success throughout the campaign. He found that resonance by being a careful observer, with the flexibility to respond effectively, and use that information to his advantage. Daniel Goleman, introduces, in his book “The New Leaders”, the concept of resonance as crucial for effective leadership (any type of leadership, business and politics alike). Obama’s campaign record suggests he has mastered this ability.

As many analysts wrote, Barack Obama certainly enjoyed many favourable circumstances. But this is true only from the moment after he became the Democratic Party nominee. Until that happened, what carried him into that position was his personal mastery, the potent ‘cocktail’ of self-belief, self-control, extraordinary articulation skills, and the ability to rope people in and motivate them.
After winning the nomination he had, indeed, the political wind behind his back: a swelling belief among the vast and disparate ranks of American voters that it was time for the Democrats: Bush’s deep unpopularity coupled with the global financial crisis, which occurred in the final stage of the campaign was a boon for Obama. Senator John McCain’s all-over-the-place campaign contributed as well. Some would argue that Sarah Palin’s hasty selection as McCain’s running mate did its bit to drive away moderate Republicans. All those are, indeed, valid factors.
But all these cannot explain the organisational phenomenon everyone, who closely followed this campaign, noted, for example, the historic mobilisation of around a million people who became involved in the campaign, as volunteers for Obama. Its ranks were drawn from across the demographic table: The youth, hitherto lost to political engagement, old people, minority groups, who have felt disenfranchised for many years; but also middle class white people who just caught a glimpse of a different future, and who looked at this bold man who had the audacity to hope. They all wanted a piece of this for themselves, too. All these groups, an unprecedented fruit salad of people from all ethnic backgrounds, skin colours, economic groups and educational levels - corralled into a mighty army of foot soldiers.
Barack Obama made it possible for every African American child to believe that they, too, can. But also any other underdog, any minority, received, on that Tuesday, 4 November, the same message of possibility. He sent that very message of hope to millions of people around the globe, who felt despondent and sidelined. The excitement in Africa alone was something to behold.
In leadership terms Obama displayed a powerful, distinctive presence. Presence is, perhaps, a different way to explain and give context to that overburdened term “charisma”. On the eve of the election, America was characterised by great uncertainty and huge dollops of disillusionment with the old methods of doing things - which the tanking economy showed were simply not working. His offer of a distinctive “can do”, positive future provided the right amount of inspiration. One of the key aspects of a good leader is the ability to create an inspiring focus on the future. Invariably, it proves to be a winning formula. It was encapsulated in, and epitomised by, Obama’s campaign slogan, “yes we can”.
But presence, in leadership terms, also has another meaning, this relates to the personal manner in which you handle yourself, and the choices you make - the “how” and the “what” which inform your decision-making. How you face uncertainty, anxiety and adversity. Obama met these challenges with unfaltering ease and with a combination of determination and seriousness. His body language is completely congruent with what he says and what happens around him: the flashing of his winning smile, bending to listen to people, carrying himself gracefully and elegantly at all times, on stages, in crowded rooms, in moments of rest and repose on the trail, in halls, on TV shows, and in endless debates. He was always the same: cool, thoughtful, articulate, respectful, measured, relaxed enough to smile and even laugh, listen attentively to his opponents or his interviewers. He showed this mysterious mix that we all strive for in a leader and in our best self: to be able to be listening to others and take them into account, yet simultaneously to stand up for what we think is right. Being kind but firm. Projecting a sense of competence and control, without being overbearing and controlling. Being dependable by being consistent. To use a very commonly used coaching and mentoring expression, he demonstrated exemplary assertiveness.

Obama was elected because he had passed with flying colours the many tests and hurdles of a much too-long and gruelling journey of the presidential campaign (almost two years in the current cycle). This is no mean feat. It requires a very sophisticated set of skills – personal, organisational and strategic. Even his harshest critics admit today that what they claimed to be his thin record of achievements and slight resume is at least offset by this exemplary campaign.

What Barack Obama will do as president is a different issue. But what he had achieved on that historic night, November 4 2008, will never be taken away from him and from his army of followers and voters.

* This article was published in 'Leadership' magazine, South Africa, December 2008 Issue.

360 Degrees Feedback

Poet Robert Burns said in 1785, "Oh, what a great gift we would have if we could only see ourselves as others see us". So, what indeed would happen if this gift could be given to you as a leader in your organistaion?

I recently completed a 360-degrees feedback process for one of my clients. The whole management team took part in the process, which concluded the round of coaching sessions all of them had received before or during the process.

Combining this very potent form of feedback with coaching proved to be a great success.

It not only lent extra weight to insights people had about themselves, and deepened the level of self-awareness they had gained though coaching. It also opened up a new space in the boardroom.

The change was this: Instead of trying to hide behind masks of competence and ability, trying to appear certain and all-knowing, a more realistic and humane space had opened up. People could accept the trivial (but often ignored) fact that we all are human beings, who make mistakes, and who have some weaknesses - and some strengths. The whole team gained an insight into what those particular strengths and challenges were for each member, allowing it to better prepared for the challenge of taking on the weaknesses, either working with them or around them, and helping fellow managers with skills that may need brushing up or honing. At the same time it enabled them to also take a fresh look and better, more focused advantage, of the strengths.

In other words, the very individual process of each manager’s personal and professional growth which was hitherto confined to the four walls, four eyes and four ears of coach and client, evolved, through the participation in the 360-degrees feedback process, into a shared process of growth and learning as a team.

The wealth of information gained from the process is quite extraordinary. Obviously, there is a richness of information about each individual assessed. However, there are themes and patterns that emerge, which may need attention for the company as a whole. For example, frustrations in specific teams or departments surfaced very clearly in the survey. It enabled, for instance, an immediate intervention in one case in which two departments had entertained for a long time a very fraught relationship between their senior members. In addition, as a result of the survey, the team decided to embark on a series of interventions to learn how to deal with conflict and how to improve decision-making processes, by learning more, and more systematically, about communication.

These were two examples of immediate and direct results of the process. One of the themes that emerged in this particular team was that most of its members did not manage to be appropriately assertive: they either fell into the category of being far too aggressive or behaved too passively, giving up and bottling in frustrations .

These group, or team, interventions will provide further expansion of the new opened-up space, of being realistic, yet pragmatic. Facing challenges in an open, transparent manner is a far better approach than trying to constantly impress, or to engage in blaming others for failures and generally using too much judgment and too little rational, real and constructive conversation.

Finally, after the conclusion of the process some individual managers decided to schedule limited further coaching sessions, based on specific and focused goals which have been identified through the 360-degrees feedback.

A 360-degrees process entered to by a company shows a real intention to develop its best resource: its people. However, it is critical that the process be properly conducted, and that support is in place for the participants.

More details on how 360 Degrees Process is administered at TML Coaching is available on my website: http://www.tmlcoaching.co.za/360degrees.php

What to do with this anger???

I recently came across a methodology I had never heard of before. It’s called “The Work” – and Byron Katie is the woman behind it. While slightly “faddish” in flavour on the website, like many Californian-based trends in therapy/ counselling/coaching, it resonated with me right away because of the simple idea behind it.
What we try to do in coaching is often, very simply, to stop ourselves from operating on “auto pilot” when we wish to create change - any change.
Changes we are looking for can be, to use just a few from recent clients: wanting to stop worrying too much about a colleague at work, dealing with conflict in a small team, making the right decision regarding career (leave the current company or stay and work through some issues there?) or stop food addiction, and lose weight.
Whatever it is we wish to change: we need to identify what’s our pattern, where’s the ‘autopilot’ taking us, and try to do it differently from now on. But how?
That’s where I found The Work’s “process of inquiry” very useful.
It teaches you to identify and question the thoughts that cause your current pain or uneasiness or unhappiness (they call it “suffering”). It gives you a tool to understand what is hurting you, and to address your problems with clarity.
I will outline the steps below, the way I translated them into my work, using it on myself first, then on clients, in both cases with very satisfactory results. I chose to do it on myself regarding a rough patch I was going through in my relationship with one of my family members. By going through the process below I realised that I was blaming the family member for my own anguish, while it was not at all her fault. She was merely being herself, pushing invisible buttons in me, which triggered me (on autopilot, oblivious to it, then realising it but finding it hard to crisply distinguish to myself what was so upsetting). A few weeks later our relationship has become authentic, flowing, warm and loving. What a relief. I feel lighter.

I then tried it with a client experiencing severe problems in communication and teamwork with his superior at work. Through the process, he managed to identify how painful certain behaviours by the boss were to him, and how he responded emotionally, causing a spiral of events making things worse and worse and feeling inadequate, stressed, and very, very angry. He now feels he is in control simply because he realised and internalised, deeply, that it is his own emotions and nothing really to do with the boss. It is a relief to notice that!
Yet, it means one has to work hard to change the habit, the ‘auto pilot; keep consciously paying attention when faced with similar situations or with the people we know trigger us. Do so for a while, and the change will happen.

So what’s this ‘magic’ “Work”?

First Step – is called “Judge Your Neighbour” – meaning: despite always being encouraged NOT to judge others, there is no need to suppress it here: the judgments we do make provide the “starting points for self-realisation. By letting the judging mind have its life on paper, we discover through the mirror of those around us what we haven't yet realised about ourselves”. Here, you are presented with a worksheet asking the following questions:
1. Who angers, irritates, saddens, or frustrates you, and why?
2. How do you want them to change?
3. What is it that they should or shouldn't do, be, think, or feel? What advice could you offer?
4. What do they need to do in order for you to be happy?
5. What do you think of them? Make a list.
6. What is it that you don't want to experience with that person again?

Step Two - Once you have gone through this process of judging, stating what it is that annoys, upsets, saddens or otherwise affects you negatively; you can start the next step which is about questioning – or reality-checking.
Interestingly, this stage is very similar to The Thinking Environment of Nancy Kline2. Her methodology is about first allowing the person to say ALL that is on their mind: everything they wish to talk about, say, feel or think. Her technique is different and much less directive for that first stage. Yet, once you have crystallised what it is that you are willing to deal with (“I want to stop being frightened that my boss will think I am not good at my job”; “I want to be less dogmatic and controlling toward my teenage son”; “I want to be less frustrated with slow people and be patient in dealing with those who need guidance” ); you are required to ask a few questions which are very similar to the questions below: what are you assuming, and is it true?

The Work denotes Four Questions. You can ask them regarding the first thought you had in question 1, or, if there is one assumption that has been recognised by you as the crux of the matter (such as: “I am scared my boss will think I am not good enough”, you start asking :
1. Is it true?
• The answer is a “yes” or a “no.”
• If your answer is no, continue to question #3.

2. Can you absolutely know that it’s true?
Even if the answer is “yes,” move to question #3.

3. How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought?
• Describe the feelings that happen physically when you believe that thought.
• Describe how much of your body these feelings take over.
• Does that thought bring peace or stress into your life?
• How do you treat that person, yourself, and others when you believe that thought?
• What addictions/obsessions begin to manifest when you think that thought? (Do you reach for alcohol, credit cards, food, the TV remote, when you think that thought?)
• Where does your mind travel (into the past and/or future) when you believe that thought? Describe the images.
• Whose business are you in when you think that thought?
• What do you get for holding on to that belief? Describe the pain, if any.
• What do you fear would happen if you didn’t believe that thought?
• Where and when did that thought first occur to you?

4. Who would you be without the thought?
• Close your eyes. Describe life without that thought.
• Who would you be without your story?
• Drop the story just for a moment, and describe what you see.


Step Three - is about turning the concept or assumption that you are questioning around.
This part requires some skill or more thinking, as it can bring different results depending on what it is that you’re focusing on turning around. However, according to “The Work” “Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite of your original statement and see what you and the person you've judged have in common". Nancy Kline’s parallel “incisive question” offers a similar idea, opening for us an opportunity to remove the limiting assumption, get it out of the way, so we can see, think or feel differently.

A statement can be turned around to the opposite, to the other, or to the self (and sometimes to "my thinking," wherever that applies). Find a minimum of three genuine examples in your life where each turnaround is true.

For example, "Paul doesn't understand me" can be turned around to "Paul does understand me." Another turnaround is "I don't understand Paul." A third is "I don't understand myself."
You need to be creative with the turnarounds. They are eye-openers showing you previously unseen aspects of yourself reflected back through others. Once you've found a turnaround, try to allow yourself feel what it would be like to actually believe it, feel it or know this new aspect. How would that change your relationship with that person, or your feeling about yourself?
It is amazing to start realising, as my client who had an issue with his boss said “I was looking at myself in the mirror, seeing how I was doing all these things I always thought were being done to me. I didn’t like it at first but then, it was a sense of such powerful relief: it is up to me! I am not a victim!”

“The Work” website says,
"Now, instead of trying to change the world around me...I can put the thoughts on paper, investigate them, turn them around, and find that I am the very thing I thought you were. In the moment I see you as selfish, I am selfish (deciding how you should be). In the moment I see you as unkind, I am unkind. The turnarounds are your prescription for happiness. Live the medicine you have been prescribing for others".

Here are a few more examples of turnarounds from the website:
"He should understand me" turns around to:- He shouldn't understand me.- I should understand him.- I should understand myself.
"I need him to be kind to me" turns around to:- I don't need him to be kind to me.- I need me to be kind to him. (Can I live it?)- I need me to be kind to myself.
"He is unloving to me" turns around to:- He is loving to me (To the best of his ability)- I am unloving to him - I am unloving to me.
"Paul shouldn't shout at me" turns around to:- Paul should shout at me. (Obviously: In reality, he does sometimes. Am I listening?)- I shouldn't shout at Paul.- I shouldn't shout at me.

The Final (fourth) Step focuses on Embracing Reality.
The method is: After you have turned around the judgments in your answers to numbers 1 through 5 on the Worksheet (asking if they are as true), turn number 6 around using "I am willing ..." and "I look forward to ..."
For example, "I don't ever want to experience an argument with Paul" turns around to "I am willing to experience an argument with Paul" and "I look forward to experiencing an argument with Paul." Why would you look forward to it? Number 6 focuses on actually accepting that as human being, we all do this: we all interpret others, judge them, knowingly or unaware. We all judge ourselves as well. Sometimes very harshly. It is about “fully embracing all of mind and life without fear, and being open to reality”1, to what Gestalt calls “what is”.

Next time you experience an argument with Paul and it hurts, you can put your thoughts on paper and investigate them. Uncomfortable feelings are merely the reminders that we've attached to something that may not be true for us. They let us know that it's time to start a process of finding out what’s going on, using, for example The Work’s methodology.

Whenever you feel seething with resentment, anger or frustration, you can actually use it as a clue. This is a sign that you should check:
What did I avoid doing or saying?

Because, invariably, it is about what we do NOT ask for, acknowledge or demand that we are actually angry or upset. It is anger towards yourself. This is a difficult concept to accept for many clients. “What? Do you mean that I can’t just blame the boss/my wife/my insolent teenager/my rude neighbour? “
It is easier, and short-term comforting to do that, sure. But if you want a real change, you need to start looking at how your interpretations and your assumptions are affecting how you respond, how you feel and how you engage.

Byron Katie expresses this idea thus1: "Until you can see the enemy as a friend, your Work is not done. This doesn't mean you must invite him to dinner. Friendship is an internal experience. You may never see him again, you may even divorce him, but as you think about him are you feeling stress or peace? In my experience, it takes only one person to have a successful relationship. I like to say I have the perfect marriage, and I can't really know what kind of marriage my husband has (though he tells me he's happy too)".

Sources:
1 http://www.thework.com/
2 Kline, N. (2006) Time To Think: Listening to Ignite The Human Mind (6th ed.) London: WardLock Cassell Illustrated.

How Solution Focus - as opposed to Problem Focus – Works.

Solution Focused Brief Therapy

In the early 1980’s, Steve de Shazer and his wife Insoo Kim Berg of Milwaukee, USA, and the team at the Brief Family Therapy Family Center started a new approach/methodology in dealing with people seeking solutions to their problems . 1
Insoo Kim Berg elaborated:
“Instead of problem solving, we focus on solution-building. Which sounds like a play on words, but it's a profoundly different paradigm. We're not worrying about the problems. We discovered, in fact… that there's no connection between a problem and its solution. No connection whatsoever. Because when you ask a client about their problem, they will tell you a certain kind of description; but when you ask them about their solutions, they give you entirely different descriptions of what the solution would look like for them. So a horrible, alcoholic family will say, "We will have dinner together and talk to each other. We will go for a walk together." 2
Simply put, the Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) methodology suggests that if you focus on the problem at hand, you amplify and enhance it, whereas if you focus on the solution, you amplify and enhance the solution-seeking abilities and strategies that work best for you. This gets you much closer to achieving your goal, or solution. Berg and de Shazer had many years of experience in therapy and achieved impressive success. Soon the method spread worldwide.
A few assumptions need to be adopted when understanding and implementing the approach*:
1. Change is happening all the time and is unavoidable
2. A belief in abundance, not scarcity
3. Rational logic is not always the most effective approach. Often, the paradoxical, different way more appropriate and effective to use even when it seems totally illogical to us at the time
4. Look at everything with curiosity and a sense of ‘anything is possible’: asks ‘what if?’ and ’perhaps?’ and never ‘why?’
5. People are the resource for change not the focus of it. i.e., not trying to change anyone, but change the realities people perceive and act within for themselves
6. The anticipated future plays a strong role in the present
7. Encourage action in the face of ambiguity (there always will be a measure of ambiguity no matter how much information you would gather, you always need to make a judgement call at some stage)
8. Promote dealing with setbacks or mistakes via curiosity and generosity rather than blame
(*Adapted from Belinda Druker and Svea van der Hoom’s Introductory Workbook “Learning to Think and Work Using A Solution Focused Approach” ,2002. P 4 3)
The practical steps available to take with a client are based on the following questions/avenues of investigation or focus:
1. When does the problem NOT happen (finding exception i.e. when it is not there, or is diminished, or managed better)
2. How has the client coped thus far/is coping?
3. What are the strengths used to cope thus far/now?
4. Past successes i.e. what has worked in the past?
5. What is helping? What works?
6. How come it isn’t worse?
Each of these questions in investigated, through the lenses “how come”, “how”, “what happens when”.
The question “why” is not important. Focusing on the problem and learning its details is irrelevant.
Another portion of the interview with Berg is instructive:
“Yalom: So, but why haven't they [the clients, ML] made those changes already? How does asking these questions help?
Berg: Because we are asking them about their own plan. Not my agenda for you, but your plan. You didn't even know you have a plan. You actually don't when you first walk in. You tell me you have no idea what to do. And then in the process of talking, you start... gradually, through this building process, to develop a blueprint.
Yalom: So you think people have some kind of blueprint to help them grow and change?
Berg: No, I think they have all the necessary bricks and lumber, somewhere lying around, but they don't know how to put it together. I think that talking to me helps them figure out how to put it together. Not only create the blueprint, but which lumber goes where, which piece goes where...” 2
The above is a shift from the scientific or medical paradigm of investigating a complaint and understanding it in full before applying a solution.
Other techniques SFBT practitioners use include “The Miracle Question” and Scaling. Both are tools helping clients to focus on a better future, when the problem has been solved, and on what is available to them in coping with the problem, en route to finding the solution.

Neuroscience Research: A Key to Understanding Behaviour- and Mind-Changing

For decades, many researchers and practitioners of the so-called helping professions, including psychotherapists and coaches have been trying to explore practices which would harness the accumulating advanced scientific knowledge about the human brain to become more effective in helping people change behaviours, solve complex problems and increase their sense of well being.
The matter of changing behaviour (or minds) applies to almost anything from organisational development and management, to parenting, advertising, politics, and obviously to all ‘helping professions’.
For example, in an article titled “The Neuroscience of Leadership”, Australian Executive Coach David Rock and psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz, explore what happens in our brains when faced with change. Understanding these brain processes sheds a useful light on what is required to actually change minds and behaviour. “Humans have brains designed to register change as threat, and thus they often cling to old habits and mindsets” 4
This new understanding of how the human brain works explains very well why SFBT is so effective.
To summarise a few points made by Rock and Schwartz:
When faced with change, there is a discomfort, which can be explained by what happens in the brain: the “working memory” which is located in our prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that engages when we encounter something new. While habits are stored away in a lower part of the brain, the basal ganglia, ‘home’ to routine activities and familiar objects and processes (such as driving, riding a bicycle, etc) . It works very well without any attention focused on it and without conscious thought. However, when faced with a new situation, the prefrontal cortex must become engaged and expend a lot of energy to keep the focus (when you learn to drive a car, at first, for example.) We have, therefore, a built-in preference to go on with the ‘comfortable’, known, and to stick with less energy/effort demanding habits.
Human brains have a very well-developed capacity to discern “errors” which are “perceived differences between expectation and actuality” 4.
The error signals are generated in a part of the brain known as the orbital frontal cortex which is located very closely to the amygdala where the emotions like fear and anger are activated. These two parts of the brain are amongst the oldest mammal parts of our brain. When they are activated, we tend to behave without engaging the higher intellectual functions of the brain.
Every time we act out of an impulse of rage, fear, panic, we’re in an “amygdala hijack” mode (Daniel Goleman 5).
Therefore, the first two crucial factors we need to understand in approaching behaviour-change are:
1. Change is painful – or requires special effort.
2. When people are given an instruction when, the brain may well activate the part of it that notices change as an ‘error’, which is the more ‘primitive’ part of the brain, causing us to go into defence mode. This may explain why systems based on telling, teaching frontally, and using carrot and stick methods, do not work in the long run.
If telling people what to do is not working, what should leaders, parents, and ‘helping professions’ practitioners do instead?
New connections a person makes on his own are those created by access to his or hers own thinking.
The best way to facilitate that is by asking questions, requiring the person to access his or hers own powers of thinking, without any threat present. This enables the creation of new neural connections in their brain, avoiding the ‘automatic’ activation of ‘error’-based responses. Moreover, “when people solve problems themselves, the brain releases a rush of neurotransmitters like adrenaline. This phenomenon provides scientific basis for some of the practices of leadership coaching”. 4
Based on quantum physics principles and neurological research, claim Rock and Schwartz, paying attention to any specific brain connection keeps the circuit open and alive, and after a while, the connections become stable physical changes in the brain’s structure. This explains the importance of focusing attention, repeatedly, to a new connection, a new and fresh thought the person has.

The implication is that as leaders, helping professions practitioners or parents, we must keep focusing on the new neuronal networks. Or, using the words of American coach Sheryl Read, if we do that “closely enough, often enough and long enough” a client can build “the strength of the habit or idea. The attention can take a number of forms. Reinforcement and positive feedback are typical tools of the coach in maintaining attention on an idea. They are a signal to the client’s brain to do more. Positive feedback serves to mark new synapses for preservation rather than pruning. Through the release of dopamines**, positive feedback further serves to calm the mind and enhance focus.” 6

Furthermore, if focusing attention creates new connections in the brain, it is crucial to choose what to focus on. If we choose to delve in the problem at hand by asking questions about “why this happened” and focusing attention to behaviours or patterns such as self-doubt, anxieties, bad past patterns of problem-solving, etc., we cause the creation of more connections which do not promote the solution of the problem. Focusing on the solution instead, by asking about what worked, when was the problem less apparent or when was it well coped with (as in SFBT’s approach) we are, in fact, enabling the creation of more – and better - coping mechanisms.

Expectations Shape Reality – Mental Maps

Various researchers and practitioners focusing on neuroscience make a further point which is very well aligned with SFBT’s assumption: that the anticipated future plays a strong role in the present (“expectation shapes reality” in Rock and Schwartz’s phrasing).
Mental maps or mental models, many scientists, practitioners and theorists find, play a huge role in human perception, and thus, in human behaviour.
Neurological evidence also suggests that expectations have an effect on what we perceive and how we interpret information. Those expectations can be conscious or unconscious. In order to change someone’s mental maps, one needs to approach change with an intention of enabling (or “cultivating”, in Rock and Schwartz’s article) “moments of insight” 4. Moments of insight generate brain activity which bring about the required set of new connections needed in order to create change without threat. The new connections can assist us in overcoming the ‘built in’ resistance that we have to new and different things.
Insights must come from within. Other people’s observations, no matter how well expressed and elaborated, do not have the same effect as self-discovery. This suggests, again, that advice- giving in all its forms and manifestations has only a very limited effectiveness in changing people’s minds and behaviour. It robs people of the opportunity to feel the adrenaline rush, which only occurs when they make the new connections.

The Limited Power of Just Listening

What happens when, instead of focusing on the solutions, one allows for example, the venting of frustration to take place? According to Dr. Ellen Weber, director of MITA Brain Based Renewal Center in New York, “People who vent actually:

1. Grow dendrite** brain cell connectors to vent even faster next time
2. Create a pattern in their brain’s basal ganglia so that anger comes out more whenever they
are stressed
3. See fewer answers and sustain fewer friendships than people who reflect... say nothing ... or
give thoughtful responses
4. Cause conflicts that spread to other people through negative venting practices
5. Shut down learning and blind themselves and others to possibilities that would solve the
problem ... because of the cortisol** hormone that increases through venting”7

In other words – allowing to vent, focusing on the problem or subjecting people to frontal lectures and advice-giving will work against the change in mental maps which we seek by facilitating new insights, which would, in turn, lead the way to real change.

**Dendrite: The treelike extension of a neuron. Most neurons have multiple dendrites, which are short and typically highly branched. Dendrites are specialised for receiving information and form synaptic contacts with the terminals of other nerve cells to allow nerve impulses to be transmitted 8
Cortisol: A vital brain hormone produced in the adrenal gland. Often referred to as the "stress hormone", it is involved in the response to stress: it increases blood pressure, blood sugar levels and has an immunosuppressive action 8
Dopamine: is an important neurotransmitter which facilitates critical brain functions.


Practical Implications

So, the ‘sixty four dollar question’ is: “How…can leaders effectively change their own or other’s people’s behaviour?” this is the question Rock and Schwartz pose, and their reply is:
1. Leave the problem behaviours in the past
2. Focus on intensifying and creating new behaviours
3. Over time those will shape the dominant pathways in the brain
4. This is achieved through solution-focused questioning approach that facilitates self-insight, rather than through advice-giving. 4

Looking at the two above-mentioned approaches - neuroscience and Solution Focused Brief Therapy - in conjunction, leads to interesting conclusions, which bring together long term successful practitioner experience with cutting edge scientific knowledge of the brain.
Shifting the paradigm from lecturing/telling/advising to learning how to draw out the solutions, focus attention on it and enhance the experience until new habits are formed is the challenging effective paradigm for successful changes in thinking and in behaviour.

Notes and Bibliography

1 De Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg’s work built on that of a number of other innovators, among them Milton Erickson, and the group at the Mental Research Institute (MRI) at Palo Alto – Gregory Bateson, Don Jackson, Paul Watzlawick, John Weakland, Virginia Satir, Jay Haley, Richard Fisch, Janet Beavin Bavelas and others. More about the background is available online, for example: www.beief-therapy.org
2 http://psychotherapy.net/interview/Insoo_Kim_Berg [Accessed 11 March 2008]
3 Druker, B. and Van der Hoom, S., Learning to Think and Work Using A Solution Focused Approach Workbook ,2002.
4 Rock. D, and Schwartz, J. The Neuroscience of Leadership. In Reclaiming Children and Youth 16:3, Fall 2007 pp 10-17. Available online: http://www.strategy-business.com/press/article/06207 [Accessed 10 March 2008]
5 Goleman D. Emotional Intelligence & Working With Emotional Intelligence. Omnibus, Bloomsbury, 2004.
6 Read, S.L. Through the Mind, We Create Change. Coaching Methodologies for Enabling Change [Article] Read Solutions Group, April 2007
7 Weber, E., Brain Based Business, April 2006, http://www.brainbasedbusiness.com [Accessed 15 March 2008]
8 http://www.brainexplorer.org/glossary/dendrites.shtml [Accessed 15 March 2008]

Change - A Paradox?

Arnold Beisser tagged the Paradoxical Theory of Change in 1970 1.In essence; he said that the quickest path to growthful change is not via force (ours own or others’) but through fully embracing the person we are.

This approach is beautifully aligned with Taoism, which teaches that change should be guided or handled “in a natural, easy way, making for beauty and life.”2 Instead of forcefully trying to be in control, there is a “soft, pliant, yielding, gentle" way.

Translated into coaching terms, it is not about being passive, but about accepting what is going on, who you are, your patterns and your challenges and the systems you operate within (your family, your work place, etc.) see them all, observe them well, and only then move forward approaching them differently. A different way of knowing and seeing opens up a new world of options you may have not considered, or even seen.

If it sounds farfetched, it is because when you read this, you think you know your reality and yourself pretty well. And you do. However, by focusing on what Gestalt coaching would call “what is”, or other popular coaching models would call “the reality” or “the story”, you can start gaining insight into habitual behaviours and perceptions, then at patterns. That gives you an insight into where there may be stuckness that requires change.

Let’s consider what Buddhism is telling us about change in life.
One of the “Four Noble Truths”2 is that our human situation is characterised by “dukkha”: suffering or frustration, in face of the inevitable basic fact of life; that everything is transitory and impermanent. "All things arise and pass away". Suffering arises each time that we try to “resist the life flow and try to cling to fixed forms which are all "maya", (by the way, the idea of ego, or separate self, is also maya). Maya* means, in simple English, that we cling to an illusion, because what we think we know is not the reality, because no one can see the reality in full. We think we know many things, events, people or ideas. But if we stop for a moment and really check how much we know, or compare what we think with others’ perceptions, we often find ourselves very surprised. An event that took place in a certain place and time and experienced by two or more people, told by the participants, is often told and perceived very differently. Right?

I find looking through other cultures’ lenses at ourselves very refreshing. It affords us an opportunity to shed more light on what we can call “the human condition”.

Some thinkers deny that human nature has really changed in any fundamentally meaningful way over time and that, despite all of our social and scientific advances, human beings remain essentially unchanged and merely have been transplanted into progressively more complex environments (Fermi)3. There are many other philosophies arguing for and against this viewpoint. But one thing we do know, by merely looking at the current state of affairs in most western culture countries: people are under stress, life is complex, the family unit is under pressure, the community concept is not sufficiently used as a support system, and there are many more cases of depression, suicide, violence and addictions. It seems that human nature, changed or not, is in need of some new ways of approaching life, adaptive ways, which take into account the information and technological revolutions, which increased the pace of life into an unprecedented pace.(The World Health Organization reports, such as, for example: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/factsheets/ft_violencealcohol.pdf make a very interesting reading in this regard).

So –how do we face the test of change in this challenging time, which requires adaptive skills?

If you follow the Beisser (and Taoism, Buddhism and other similar philosophies) approach: you do so by accepting what is, not fighting against changes, and by embracing the fact that change is scary sometimes, and that this is OK. Staying with anxiety and ambiguity is important. Embracing the parts in us that are afraid of the change or are upset by its implications is important as a constructive and developmental step. Once we recognize that this is where we are at, we can start building on our strengths, skills and resources, getting the necessary support systems in place, making new choices, trying new options, reflecting on how they’re working for us, adapting again, and going forward.

Pushing hard for change, in a manner that is not gentle and which doesn’t take into account the resistance that we as individuals – and as systems (families, teams, companies) – have, is bound to fail.

-----------------
1 Late Gestalt therapist and teacher Arnold Beisser was struck by polio in 1950 when he was 25. A medical school graduate, Navy reserve officer, and tennis champion, he became paralyzed from the neck down. This did not stop him from living a very productive life, with family and flourishing career making use of his immense understanding of human nature. Paradoxical Theory of Change," (1970)
2 http://www.peaceloveandme.com/yinyang.html
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition

Bring Into Awareness - Why is That So Crucial? I am Already Self-Aware!

Gestalt coaching "emphasizes bringing into awareness those habitual behavioral or ideational patterns that interfere with clients’ inherent capacity to meet their needs and achieve their desired goals. Without awareness, no effective action can be conceived, articulated, or taken. As an agent of awareness, the Gestalt coach encourages clients to pay attention to and thereby acknowledge what is true and real for them in the moment, whether emotional, ideational, or physical." (Siminovich & Van Eron, 2006 1).

Bringing into awareness is a critical component of any coaching intervention. Various schools of thought, or practice, may use different approaches, or techniques, to achieve the pivotal increased awareness required for change. This awareness is an absolute requirement for a mindful, proactive and desired change.

A very famous and classic model of awareness is the Johari Window shown above. You probably have seen it before. No matter how self-aware we think we are, there always are elements in our behaviour, which are unknown to us, yet may be known to others (or not known at all. Subtle emotions we may have which we do not acknowledge, and do not act upon in a direct way).

However, when you allow yourself, as an individual or an organisation, to start highlighting the unknown parts, you should be focusing on the constructive or developmental aspect:

Bringing into awareness "habitual begavioural" and "ideational" patterns (using Gestalt terminology, 1), or going into the territory where client is "stuck in a strong emotional state that is blocking them from moving on" 2. Emotional state is not confined to individuals. Organisations have their own habitual behaviours and ideational (perceptions, assumptions, thinking) patterns which are preventing them from seeing clearly what needs to be done, or how to get there.

This is the time when coaching becomes invaluable. My view is that as coaches, we have 2 work tools which we bring into the coaching intervention: A large mirror and a large torch. It is a metaphor for what is needed: someone who will mirror back to you the patterns that you may be aware of, but may not. Reflect back to you how your behaviour, or thinking, look and sound. Highlight what you cannot always see, the in-the-shadow parts of the Johari window.

It might sometimes be scary to learn what you perhaps don't wish to face. But more often than not, fears of discovering the unknown are truly unfounded: they are, after all, 'Future Events that Aren't Real' or 'False Evidence Appearing Real'.

Going into coaching as a client, you make a commitment, and you actually CHOOSE to go there, and use the mirror and torch to your future advantage.

1 The full article, The Pragmatics of Magic The Work of Gestalt Coaching, was published in OD Practitioner Vol. 38, 2006 by DOROTHY E. SIMINOVITCH, PhD, MCC, ICFMaster Certified Coach, co-chair of the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland’s International Gestalt Coaching Program (IGCP) and co-chair of GIC’s Intensive Training Program on Group Leadership. ANN M. VAN ERON, PhD, MCC, is principal of Potentials, an international coaching and organization development consulting firm

2 Whitworth, Kimsey-House & Sandahl, Co-Active Coaching (Davies-Black, 1998)

Coaching Skills

What are the skills used by coaches in sessions?

These are skills that every one of us can master, if intent on it, and use as managers, parents, or leaders. Coaches are trained - and strive to - use them skillfully to the benefit of the client.

Listening - The building block of any helping relationship. This is about a very intentional activity: Listening attentively, fully, without or with minimal interruption, with mindfulness to our own inner voices, managing them so they do not cloud or interfere with what we are listening to. With eyes focused on the client at all times. The best description of listening I have ever encountered is from Nancy Kline (3)
Closely related to this skill, are:
Attending Skills - the way you are physically and psychologically, which indicates, often without words, to the client that he/she is supported. In coaching we often use the term: Being present.
Empathy - "Accurate empathy" (Egan 1,which means you really managed, as listener to get the essence of what is going on) elicits response that leads to further clarification, progression in dialogue. If the empathy is inaccurate – client will correct you. There is a risk here, that they would think you don't get it or them, that you don't listen. It might shut down the dialogue.
Reflecting - "Respectful Responding" (Egan 1) – paraphrasing in a way that shows the depth of listening.
Articulating – succinctly describe what’s going on.
Clarifying – help client see what they can’t see for themselves.
Metaview –reconnect client to his vision of him or her self. (2)
Metaphor – creating those can help client and coach comprehend faster and more easily.
Acknowledging – strengthen client’s foundation, who he/she IS, highlight a value or an action they took.
Interpretation – non-judgmental observation. Not the Freudian version.
Intuition – use it when you feel it. Phrase it: “I have a sense”, “may I tell you what gut feeling I have?” “I wonder if”, “can I check something with you…” “See how it fits you”
Blurting – coming in without formulating perfectly. OK to be clumsy. we are not perfect in anything, including in thinking or articulating. Modelling this to the client is fine. (2)
Curious questions – open ended, make them feel special, build a bond. It is not about fake curiosity. That would not work. Coaching requires real curious minds.
Powerful questions – invite introspection, present additional solutions and lead to greater creativity and insight.
Brainstorming –equal participation coach/client, create more ideas, by permission from the client, and keep being non attached to own ideas.
Planning/Goal setting – splitting goals into manageable pieces – baby steps.
Requesting – request action at appropriate times. Specific and measurable. This may include homework for the client, and ususally would be around asking him or her to try something new and different, stertching them out of a comfort zone.
Asking permission – this is part and parcel of any coaching relationship and can be applied always to when you want to assist someone facing a challenge: by that you demonstrate to the client (or colleague, worker, child) has the power in the relationship - it is about them.
Bottom lining – when client wanders off, maybe avoiding difficult area, get to the point. Championing – coach stands up for the client when he/she questions his/hers ability. Coach must be sincere – clients will know when you aren’t. Doing it when client needs a boost may help move away from feeling anxious or negative about themselves.
Reframing – fresh perspective when client seems stuck in a certain way of looking at a situation. Must be relevant and specific to client, not a cliché.
Separating interpretations- disentangling them - 2 facts, which have been mashed together into one disempowering belief. See posting regarding fact-faction-fiction. (2)
Talking about failure - as a means of learning.

Sources:
1 Egan, G. (2002) The Skilled Helper (7th ed.) Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole, Thompson Learning.
2 Whitworth, L., Kimsey-House, H. and Sandahl, P. (1998) Co-Active Coaching: New Skills for
Coaching People Toward Success in Work and Life. Palo Alto: Devies-Black Publishing.
3 Kline, N. (2006) Time To Think: Listening to Ignite The Human Mind (6th ed.) London: Ward
Lock Cassell Illustrated.

What stops me from actually changing things I know are bad for me?

This is a very common question coming up in coaching sessions.

So, what is it that makes us NOT do what we know is actually good for us, and keep on doing what we know is harmful?

What is it that makes us keep eating those fattening chips, not exercise enough or at all, pick up fights with colleagues at work, or not speak up when we see wrong? There are so many examples.

The answers are, of course, very individual. But at the same time, one powerful process has to do with anxiety. One writer, Dr. Judith Sills, coined it as “The comfort Trap”.

She says: “The invisible electric fence is Anxiety. Most of us like to be safe in our comfort zone.” 1

So what do we do to overcome that anxiety which is trapping us in a current unsatisfactory situation? (Feeling in a rut; being stuck in a disliked job; not daring to take a risk that’s necessary now for taking your business forward; etc.)

Here is a list of steps, which combine Dr. Sills’ recommendations, Whitworth, Kimsey-House, and Sandahl’s work (Co-Active Coaching model) 2, and some of Peter Senge’s work 3.


1. Face what hurts – what is unsatisfying, missing, frustrating. Avoid the tempting distractions from the pain/distress caused to you by facing these causes. Distractions are: avoidance, blame, fantasy, and denial in all their forms.
2. Create a vision - where would you go from here? Can you formulate a goal, can you articulate what you hope for? Can you start thinking of various possibilities? Start creating a realistic vision of a new comfort zone. This is a very big part of what we do in coaching sessions.
3. Make choices: Do you really want to change? How committed are you to the vision of the new possibility/future? Are you sure this is what you want?
4. Identify your pattern: Have you done this before? Examine your history and personality patterns to reveal what you need to do next. Learning from our past is the only useful thing to be done about it. What would you do differently? How so? What might be the obstacles you encounter based on your self-knowledge?
5. Let go: what holds you there? Guilt, obligation, attachemnt, losses? How would you minimise those?
6. Face your fear: the electric fence of anxiety. This step may require, again, a sounding board (a coach, a counsellor, a good friend). FEAR is an acronym in the English language for “False Evidence Appearing Real”, said, famously, Neale Donald Walsch (author of “Conversations with God”).
7. Take action: choose the path of action and start acting on it. Here, again, in a coaching relationship, coach would be there to work through this with you. you start doing things differently, that means, stretching your comfort zone, which beings on some anxiety, which may bring on a slip back, but then you learn, by reflection, decide on the next step that fits the chosen path, and carry on, focusing on the GOAL.

Consider the wisdom of the following 3:

“What do we want?” is different from “What d we want to avoid?” this seems obvious, but in fact negative visions are probably more common than positive visions. Many organisations truly pull together only when their survival is threatened. They focus on what people don’t want – being taken over… losing jobs… Negative visions are limiting for three reasons:
1. Energy that could build something new is diverted to “preventing” something we don’t want to happen.
2. Negative visions carry a subtle yet unmistakable message of powerlessness…the organisation is only motivated so long as the threat persists. (And same goes for the individual avoiding something! ML)
3. Negative visions are inevitably short-term. The organisation is motivated only so long as the threat persists. Once it leaves, so does the organisation’s vision and energy. “

So what’s to be done to counteract this?

Senge says, "There are two fundamental sources of energy that can motivate organisations: fear and aspiration. "

We dealt with the fear. How about the aspiration?

This is where the 7 steps come in: individually or organisationally. The remedy is similar: “The power of aspiration drives positive visions…[it] endures as a continuing source of learning and growth.” 3

If you have a vision of where you want to be, you’re starting on the right track. These are not inspirational or motivational empty words. (Peter Senge is the founder and director of the Society for Organisational Learning and senior lecturer at MIT, and the author of several highly regarded books on change, systems thinking, management and organisations.)

Sources:

1 Sills, J. (2004) The Comfort Trap Or: What If You’re Riding A Dead Horse? New York: Viking.

2 Whitworth, L., Kimsey-House, H. and Sandahl, P. (1998) Co-Active Coaching: New Skills for Coaching People Toward Success in Work and Life. Palo Alto: Devies-Black Publishing

3 Senge, P. M. (2006) The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organisation. UK: Random House Business Books.

How Is A Paradigm Formed?

A group of scientists placed 5 monkeys in a cage and in the middle, a ladder with bananas on the top.
Every time a monkey went up the ladder, the scientists soaked the rest of the monkeys with cold water.
After a while, every time a monkey went up the ladder, the others beat up the one on the ladder.
After some time, no monkey dared to go up the ladder regardless of the temptation.
Scientists then decided to substitute one of the monkeys. The first thing this new monkey did was to go up the ladder. Immediately the other monkeys beat him up.

After several beatings, the new member learned not to climb the ladder even though he never knew why. A 2nd monkey was substituted and the same occurred. The 1st monkey participated on the beating of the 2nd monkey. A 3rd monkey was changed and the same was repeated (beating). The 4th was substituted and the beating was repeated and finally the 5th monkey was replaced.
What was left was a group of 5 monkeys that despite never having received a cold shower, continued to beat up any monkey who attempted to climb the ladder.
Were it possible to ask the monkeys why they would beat up all those who attempted to go up the ladder, I bet you the answer would be: “I don’t know – that’s how things are done around here”
Does it sound familiar?


This story beautifully illustrates how a paradigm* is formed. It is abundantly available on the interent, which unfortunately makes tracing of its origin hard. It is definitely not an original of mine, but a great one to share.

*Paradigm defined: An example serving as a model; a pattern. (Synonyms mould, standard; ideal, paragon, touchstone.) (Source: Dictionary.com)