The Rush to Judgement

In this week's episode of Desert Fathers in a Year (ab
out which I have written before), +Erik Varden reads the story of Isaac the Theban, who had judged a fellow monk. On returning to his cell, he found his way blocked by an angel, who rebuked him for judging, which is God's prerogative. Isaac of course repented. And the main point of the story is that we shouldn't judge others, and that when we fall, we should repent. 

But Bishop Varden, with his characteristic passing comment that adds so much, and reflects the depth of his own wisdom, adds: 'a penchant for judging in this way may remain with us even when we have made some progress in the spiritual life, when our eyes are open to behold God's angels.'

Which brought me up short. Why are my eyes not open to behold God's angels? Or to put it another way why is it that I could happily return to my cell having judged someone else, and thought no more about it. Why is my conscience so dulled? (For surely, conscience is another way that God's voice might speak to us in such a situation).

And I think the answer is that I am not sufficiently recollected, or living with ease (in Nancy Kline's terminology). Kline sees ease as a freedom from urgency (internal and external) and from interruptions (likewise, both internal and external). We keep ourselves so busy that we don't notice when we have casually passed judgement on someone. And knowing what we do about the Fundamental Attribution Error (that tendency to overemphasise a person's personality or character as the cause for their behaviour, while underestimating situational or environmental factors) our judgment is likely to be erroneous and unjust anyway.

+Varden goes on to say that my rush to judgment may well be an act of self-defense by means of attack, and cites another story, told by Dorotheus of Gaza in the 6th century, about three people who see a man standing on a street corner at night.  Each reaches a different conclusion about him: the first thinks he is about to do something lecherous; the second that he is a robber, and the third, that he is waiting for a friend to go and pray together. 

Projection, as we call it now, was clearly recognised back then.

So rather than rush to judgement, I need to slow down, and recognise what such an impulse to judge, and what the judgments I am inclined to make, tell me about myself. 

Or to put it another way, to slow down until I see the Angels.

Coaching Bots, Heuristics and Schemata

I attended (or logged into, to be more strictly accurate) a fascinating talk hosted by the EMCC, and presented by a research team who had compared the effectiveness of three coaching bots. 

They had build prompts to get ChatGPT to simulate three different coaching approaches, and had a fairly large sample size of coachees to interact with them.

The results were fascinating.  The team were Jonathan Reitz, Rebecca Rutschmann and Nicky Terblanche, and the three approaches they were comparing were GROW, Solutions Focussed and Cognitive Behavioural Coaching. 

Their initial hypotheses included that the GROWBot would perform best in terms of goal attainment and the goal aspect of the working alliance and would be perceived as easiest to use; and that the Solutions Focussed Bot would be most highly rated for the bond and task aspects of the working alliance, and for the working alliance overall, and would also be perceived as more effective in improving performance, more enjoyable to use, and leave users with a more favourable attitude overall and a higher likelihood of using it again.

None of these hypotheses were supported.

Instead, the analysis showed that all three bots scored similarly for goal attainment, and for every other measure the CBCBot outperformed the other two, and by statistically significant amounts in all but one case (the bond aspect of the working alliance). 

I was less surprised than the researchers (and indeed wondered how they had developed their initial hypotheses). CBT is very well researched and its efficacy is well-known (though not, of course universal) so I would have expected its coaching cousin to do well. 

And it lined nicely to the most recent module of the Psychology of Coaching Programme that I am studying, which was on Cognitive Psychology.

This was fascinating as ever, albeit rather familiar territory to me. My book Shifting Stories is a simple (though of course powerful and sophisticated!) application of cognitive psychology. And what this module did was to provide some depth and some fancy language (heuristics and schemata for example) for concepts I work with quite frequently.  But it is always good to refresh one's understanding and re-visit the assumptions and biases that underpin one's approach. And of course the future modules will probably take me into new territory, so it is quite reassuring to start from a feeling of moderate competence, before launching into the unknown.

It is also interesting that it is in the field of cognitive psychology that the coaching Bots seem to be effective (at least in terms of the aspects measured by the researchers on this project). But my hope is that I will learn more about the relational and other aspects of coaching to understand whether my hope that I am irreplaceable as a coach is well-founded or self-deluding.

My initial hypothesis, for what it's worth, is that the human aspects of coaching that Bots will not be able to simulate generative attention, nor the intuition that is born, perhaps of parallel process, nor compassion.  But how we measure the impact of these is a problem for the researchers...

A Deceptively Simple Diagram

One of the simplest models I use in my work is this diagram. It is a way of looking at the difference between junior and operational roles compared to senior and strategic roles in an organisation.

The basic idea is that at the very lowest level, people come in to work to do a job, and do it. As one gets more experienced and is promoted, one starts to have some responsibility for planning how the work is undertaken, and checking that it is in fact done.

And with further promotions, the proportion of time dedicated to planning and reviewing increases; until at the very top (say non-executive director) the role is entirely about planning and reviewing - and getting involved in operational activities would be mistaken.

What is interesting is inviting senior people to reflect on where they see their role - which nearly always results in their deciding that they are operating at a lower level than they should be. That is, they are doing too much, at the expense of planning and (in particular) reviewing. 

They tell me there are many reasons for this, which include:

• Doing is what they are good at, and indeed has led to their promotion; 
• Doing provides an immediate and visible sense of accomplishment;
• They have a strong habit about doing, and feel guilty when they stop to think.

However, they recognise that they are effectively demoting themselves; and also being overpaid for doing work that could and should be done by someone drawing a lower salary. Moreover, they are demoting, rather than growing, those below them in the structure.

Ideally, one encourages those below to work at a higher, rather than a lower, level; so that even those at entry-level are given some responsibility for planning and reviewing. Of course, under pressure, organisations tend to do the reverse: seek to increase productivity by micro-management.

Because the approach I advocate clearly means that less work gets done, if those at the bottom are 'doing' less. However, my contention is that it will probably be less unnecessary work.  For if proper planning and reviewing take place, people will learn as they go - errors and busy-work will decrease. Whereas micro-management may provoke an increase of activity but it is a mistake to equate that with productive activity. And there are other consequences: negative impacts in terms of motivation, well-being and retention of good people that will undermine long-term productivity.

Further, this model helps people to understand what it means to be 'more strategic' - a term that is often bandied about without much definition. Dedicating proper time to serious planning, and then also (and possibly more counter-culturally) to serious review is the start of a more strategic approach. Because serious review will include questions such as:

• Did we actually do what we planned to do (and if not, why not)?
• Did our activity actually deliver the results we desired (and if not, why not)?
• What are we learning?

and the answers to these questions inform our planning, which again will have some fairly simple questions that set and adjust strategic direction:

• Where are we now (honestly...)?
• Where do we want to be in the medium- to long-term?
• What do we need to do to get there?

But of course, such thinking is difficult and offers no short-term sense of accomplishment, so it is much easier just to get on and do something...