Attitudes and Behaviour

Something that often arises in my discussions with leaders and managers is how to address a team member who has a bad or negative attitude.

And whilst I generally take a fairly low-intervention approach to my coaching (see my posts about the Thinking Environment, passim), I do tend to intervene at that point. 

And the point that I make is that we generally have far more success if we focus on behaviour rather than attitude.  There are several reasons for that.

One is that we can't see an attitude: it is always our interpretation of behaviours that we can see (whether that is shouting, or simply a curled lip...). 

Allied to that is the fact that if we start to talk about someone's negative attitude, we risk provoking a very defensive response. On the one hand, our interpretation may be inaccurate, so they feel unjustly criticised; and on the other hand, even if we are accurate, people may feel that what they think is not our business.

Moreover,  people often believe that they can't directly affect their attitude, anyway.

Whereas if we focus on behaviours, there are several advantages.

One is that it is tangible and observable: we can see the curled lip, or hear the shouting. That means we are also able to evaluate and give feedback on any improvement - or the lack thereof.

Secondly, it is much clearer to the individual precisely what we are talking about and also what they need to do to change it.

And further, if someone does consistently change their behaviour in a more positive direction (staying calm when upset, or asking curious questions rather than curling a lip when unsure of another's proposition...) then that also has an impact on their attitude.

And yet, and yet, and yet... what if it really is his attitude I want to change?  That question almost always recurs.  And I refer you to the above answer...

Why we do what we do

I am currently reading Why we do what we do  by Edward Deci, and finding it fascinating. 

One of the first issues that really caught my attention was his examination of the use of money as a motivator. It is such a truism, but according to Deci we need to be very careful here, as it can undermine intrinsic motivation, changing a chosen task into a chore, and leading to a risk of alienation. He describes, for example, an experiment in which students are given puzzles to solve. Some are asked to do it for the fun of it; others are paid. At the breaks, those paid, put the puzzles down and do something else; those doing it for fun, continue to play with it.  Which would we prefer in our teams?...

His central thesis is that intrinsic motivation is both more effective and healthier than extrinsic motivation. And to encourage (or at least not destroy) intrinsic motivation, Autonomy is critical. Perceived competence is also critical.

He notes the failure of centralised bureaucratic systems (eg Soviet, Chinese) that undermine both, and lead to disengaged people doing work they believe to be meaningless with a deadening effect both on productivity and on their own well-being.

Competition is interesting: if it’s win - lose, that is problematic; but if it is perceived as a chance to test yourself against a challenging standard, it can be very positive.

Feedback: Praise is also interesting: non-controlling praise works; controlling praise (ie praise motivated by a desire to attain specific future behaviours) undermines intrinsic motivation; ambiguous praise (ie not clear if controlling or not) is likely not to work for women (who typically interpret it as controlling - conditioned to seek praise as a reward?) and is likely to work for men (interpret it as appropriate recognition for their efforts - conditioned to think of themselves as entitled to recognition?)

Negative feedback: can be disastrous: as it is often both controlling and undermining of competence!

With all of rewards, limits and feedback (both positive and negative) it’s all about how you do it. So inviting self-evaluation is by far the best approach. Deci acknowledges that these are necessary but thinks that we pay too little attention to the risks, and too frequently address the needs in ways that are severely counter-productive.

People need to understand the instrumentalities; how to behave in order to achieve desired outcomes. The linkage between their behaviour and those outcomes - and feeling competent at those instruments, in a way supportive of their autonomy and nurturing of their competence.... is likely to be valuable.  Self-critical feedback (that is accurate) is of course a competent thing to undertake.

So loads to think about, and I have not even finished the book yet.  But it does raise questions over the influencing skills model I use, for example, about which I need to think more.

And I may well write further about this one, once I have finished it.

The Value of Iteration

The last few weeks have been very interesting. I am busy working with a client on the development of a significant leadership programme to launch next year.  Based on an initial conversation with the head of the organisation about some interesting work I have been doing elsewhere, we agreed that I should speak with senior people in the organisation, as well as the managers of potential participants, and some of the potential participants themselves.

The fundamental model includes a large element of participant involvement in the design: ie on day 1 of the programme (which is modular over several months) they say what they would most value working on during subsequent days.

However, in order to invite people to the programme and give them some information to help them decide whether it is for them, and also to give some shape to the day 1 co-design exercise, it is necessary to have a high-level outline and structure; and some ideas of the types of content they can choose between. A completely blank sheet of paper would not be helpful (at least, in this particular organisational culture - I can imagine trying that elsewhere!)

So I started by asking a number of senior people for their ideas, and based on a structure which one of them proposed, and others endorsed, I then had focus groups with potential participants, and their managers. These radically re-designed the draft programme in a number of significant ways; and to their credit the senior managers are accepting that even though there were benefits of the original proposed programme which are now being lost (but other benefits, of higher perceived value to the participants, are being gained). In fact the final revision is closer to the model I have used elsewhere than our first draft here…

And of course if we are to launch next spring, which is the ambition, we really need to get invitations out before Christmas, so that people can plan their diaries accordingly. So we are having to get final agreement in something of a rush, and, for reasons of geography, mainly by remote communications.

But I think we are almost there. And although it has felt a somewhat messy process, and almost as though we were going in circles at times, I am convinced it was worth it.

In the first place, it is essential to ensure the relevance of the programme to the participants as well as to the organisation. Likewise, it is important that the relevance is recognised: involving people in the process gives them more of a stake in the outcome. That is equally true of the line managers, who will be encouraging people to make time for the programme.  But also, we are learning a lot about the organisation by the mere fact of doing this: the different ways in which people in different roles conceive of the issues is itself very useful information. Further, there is something about getting the conversation - and the thinking - going about leadership before we even start that programme that may well prove helpful.

But I have to admit to a certain relief that we are nearly at the end of (the first part of) the seemingly endless iteration...

The Dunning Kruger Effect

I have been learning a little about the Dunning-Kruger effect (in the wake of the referendum - I heard David Dunning on the radio and did a little reading subsequently). In essence, what Dunning and Kruger's research suggests is that people with low competence in a particular skill tend to over-estimate their competence, quite dramatically. Their incompetence includes an inability to make a sound judgement of their level of competence.

Moreover, those who are highly competent are more likely to underestimate their competence. I am reminded of Socrates, who probably didn't say All that I know is that I know nothing, but certainly had the intellectual humility that seems to accompany great wisdom.

I also reflected on my own complex set of beliefs about myself. I have confessed before to a fair dose of Imposter Syndrome. Is that, in fact, a clue that I am more competent than I perceive myself to be? Not so fast; for I am also pretty clear in my own mind that I am a better coach and facilitator than many others I come across. Is that, then, an example of Dunning-Kruger in its first observed form, and evidence, in fact, of my incompetence?

The best way to address such questions is probably not to pay too much heed to one's own opinion of one's abilities, but rather to seek objective measures and feedback from those who are well-placed to judge.

But the Dunning Kruger Effect raises another interesting question, and that relates to performance management. Conventional wisdom has it that you start the performance review meeting by asking the individual to assess how well he or she is doing. But if the incompetent are likely to believe that they are better than they are, and the competent that they are worse than they are, that gets the conversation into a difficult place straight away.

Moreover, in many organisations, managers shy away from giving accurate feedback in such direct conversations - understandably, because it is difficult. Instead, they make more general comments about the need to Raise the Bar and so on. And that, of course, is also fraught in this context. The incompetent, to whom the message is really addressed, will assume it doesn't apply to them. The competent, who are already carrying the bar over their heads on tiptoe, will believe that they Must Do More, like poor old Boxer in Animal Farm.

I haven't reached many conclusions about this. I need to think further about it.  And in particular I am interested in how it relates to my work on stories (did I mention my book on that is coming out shortly?)  So I would be fascinated in others' views and perceptions.

--




Incidentally, in doing the extensive picture research necessary for such a well-informed and well-illustrated blog as this, I came across this wonderful image, and found the source to be this equally wonderful blog: all of life can be mapped on a 2x2 matrix of one sort or another...

Those who know me will quickly recognise why this is a significant matrix for me to contemplate...

More On My Dark Side

Before Christmas I posted on My Dark Side, and specifically the Hogan psychometric instrument. I said at the time that I had not yet had the formal feedback session. This week I had a follow up meeting with Julia Cater of People Decisions, and we spent a couple of hours exploring the feedback report.

The first thing to say is that Julia is very skilled. She had a style that seemed relaxed and unstructured, but had clearly given serious thought to the questions raised by my feedback, and was very effective at focusing the discussion and helping me to develop real insights.

Moreover, and this is something I particularly admire, she took some personal risks in the meeting, in terms of honest disclosure of her own response to me, and that proved a catalyst for real learning.

Specifically, she had picked up on the apparent contradiction between my scoring very highly as Reserved, on the one hand, and as Colourful and Imaginative, on the other. These were my three highest scoring scales. 

According to the tool, these are strengths that may become risks if taken too far. Julia had looked behind these and unearthed something interesting: the risk behind 'Reserved' is related to my being nervous of others. The risk around both 'Colourful' and 'Imaginative' is that I make others nervous around me.

My initial reaction, of course, is that I don't make others nervous. I rather pride myself on creating a safe environment, both for my coaching clients, and in my group work.

But prompted by Julia's skilled coaching, I went a bit further than that, and reflected on times when I have in fact had that feedback. 

And then, prompted by a hypothesis from Julia (incorrect, as it happened, but nonetheless useful for that), I went further still, and reoriented my self-understanding quite considerably. For I had maintained that the 'Reserved' me was the real me, whilst the 'Colourful' and 'Imaginative' me is a persona I can adopt, a set of skills I have developed, to make me an effective and stimulating facilitator.

So Julia asked if that were a defence. And then I realised: it was the other way around. As a child, I had been Colourful and Imaginative (to a fault, some would argue); the Reserve was the defence; one that I had developed in response to years of bullying and hostile teasing at my secondary school; and possibly reinforced by a very controlling and bullying boss in my first job in training.

Julia also helped me to reflect on some of the unintended impact of that habitual reserve: when I fail fully to engage with people, they are likely to feel unvalued. They will not read it as my being reserved, as my other characteristics of Colourful and Imaginative don't suggest that. So they are likely to read it as my not thinking them worthy of my time and attention. That is important to me: I do not wish to hurt anyone by poor habits of behaviour.

So I need to moderate my 'Reserved' habits of behaviour - but not eliminate them. Because I also realise they have a real value to me: not least keeping my 'Colourful' and 'Imaginative' tendencies in check so that I don't cause others to be too nervous of me, too much of the time!

There was a lot more I learned, as Julia continued to give me good feedback, ask good questions, and disclose some of her own impressions of me. But this, I think, is sufficient to give a flavour both of the power of the tool, and the power of some really skilled coaching.

A final thought: I think I got more insight from Hogan HDS than from MBTI Step 1 or Step 2.  I have blogged before about MBTI so won't re-hash that here. But it tended to confirm how good it was to be as I perceived I was. Hogan HDS both challenged how good it was, and how accurate the perception was anyway.

I will be getting trained in the Hogan tools later this year.

My Dark Side

A number of my coaching clients, and some fellow coaches whose work I rate highly, have spoken well of the Hogan psychometrics, and especially the one that identifies potential career de-railers - the so-called Dark Side assessment.

So I have decided to get trained on these, and as a first step, had  a go at completing one myself, under the guidance of Julia Cater of People Decisions. It was very interesting.

My initial reflections on the report that emerged are that it has quite high face-validity; that is, I recognise myself in it (rather more than, say, a horoscope). Moreover, my wife (if not my greatest fan, certainly my most acute critic) also recognised me in it.  And we could both see, even though there are areas where we both think it gets it wrong, that it is a very useful basis for reflection and discussion with a coach (I have yet to meet Julia for the de-brief).

Overall, it suggests that my high scores (that is, my strengths-that-might-become-weaknesses-under-pressure are being Reserved (Independent can become detached), Imaginative (Imaginative can become eccentric) and Colourful (vivacious can become dramatic).

I also score very low on some areas where perhaps I lack the strengths at all: Diligent, Dutiful and Sceptical.

By and large, that's not too far off the mark.  However, I strongly disagree with Lacking few well-defined beliefs or interests, but with regrets about past behaviour and Lack passion or enthusiasm.

I think the Reserved is somewhat overstated, particularly Not communicate frequently or well,  and likewise the Colourful  especially Talk more than he listens.  And clearly, those two points, Not communicate frequently or well, and Talk more than he listens, sit rather oddly together.

However, I can see how it arrived at all of these, and they (and many of the other points) are worthy of thought and discussion - and even as I type, I am wondering if, under extreme stress, those may have some validity...

The big question, of course, is about the self-report aspect. For instance, I answered some questions based on the literal words, even though I suspected (and I think rightly) that they would be interpreted in a way that is not what I feel about myself. For example, when a question has ‘never’ or ‘always’ in it, I always take that literally so will tend to disagree, as there is nearly always at least one exception; whereas if it has nearly always or almost never, I will answer the opposite way.  So the process didn’t feel very robust in that way. Also, I was aware of what it was likely to be saying about me, and there is always that tendency to answer about the Andrew I’d like to be…

All in all, very interesting, despite these reservations, and as I say, it could certainly be the basis of some useful exploratory discussions and reflections.

The Dynamics of Confrontation

Have you ever had the experience where you have, gently, raised the same issue again and again, and then, eventually, lost your patience and shouted at someone about it? It is a fairly common pattern, and is explained by this model of the dynamics of confrontation, which I have adapted from John Heron's excellent book The Facilitator's Handbook. 

Confront, in this context, means to put something squarely in front of someone, so that they recognise the need to change: typically it is used to address destructive or inappropriate behaviour or patterns of thinking.

1 You identify the need to confront someone

Be clear about the purpose of confronting - to help the other person to change his or her behaviour. That implies that the individual needs to understand what change is required and why, and also that he or she needs to leave the discussion feeling motivated and able to change - not beaten up or shamed.

2 You experience anxiety

There is always some anxiety at the prospect of these difficult conversations: that may be worsened if you have a bad experience of confrontation in the past, either with this person or someone else. Recognising this anxiety is the first step to counter-acting it.

3a Anxiety distorts behaviour

It may be that your behaviour is distorted by your anxiety in one of two ways:

• Pussyfooting: you may be so concerned not to cause offence that you avoid dis- cussing the issue altogether, or you wrap up your message in such woolly or apologetic language that the message or its importance get lost. This will lead to no change in behaviour - and growing frustration in you. If you find yourself thinking “How many times do I have to tell him...?” it may be that you have been pussyfooting.

• Clobbering: you may be so concerned not to pussyfoot - or so frustrated with the problem behaviour - that you deliver your message too forcibly and are perceived as aggressive. This will leave the other person feeling beaten up - and while he or she may comply in the short term, you will leave a legacy of resentment and disempowerment. If you find yourself thinking “Why are they so defensive?” or “Why can’t they decide things for themselves...?” it may be that you have been clobbering.

3b Behaviour freed from anxiety

To detach yourself from your anxiety and other emotions (eg annoyance), use any personal strategies you have for detachment, and focus on steering the middle course: telling the truth as you see it without compromise and with compassion. 

Without compromise means no apologising, no ‘praise sandwiches,’ and short, direct and factual statements.

With compassion means no anger, no blame, and a sincere intention to help the other person to learn and change his or her behaviour.

4 Learning for other person

When you get it right, you are likely to cause a sense of shock or recognition in the other person, that will be very noticeable to you. If you are then quiet and listen (resist the temptation to move into apologetic mode), you will be able to help the other person to consider what you have said and decide what and how to change. This is uncomfortable for both people, but can lead to genuine insight and learning.

5 Appropriate support

At the end of the discussion, end on a sincere and positive note - expressing appreciation of the person’s commitment to address the issue and offering any appropriate support. 

--

So to come back to my original example, when you have asked someone repeatedly to change something (gently) and then ended up shouting at them, this model would suggest you have done this: pussyfoot, pussyfoot, pussyfoot, CLOBBER!

(Ask my kids for further details...)

More Reflections on Humour

I have blogged about humour before, (here, for example). I think it serves many important purposes, including making things memorable, reducing stress, provoking fresh perspectives, and making life more joyful.

However there are risks attached. One person's joke may be offensive to someone else.

I am in a reflective mood, having just read some feedback about a session I ran in a university. Someone was put off by a joke I had made which he or she found entirely inappropriate. I understand that it provoked a strong response that it took some time to get over, and that was clearly no part of my intention.

I am also keenly aware that if one person gives such feedback, it may well be that others are thinking it. Or they may not be - it is very hard to know.

Humour is risky. The joke under consideration was in the context of talking about time management and Viktor Frankl's work, derived from his experience in a concentration camp. I summarised that he found that the people who survived the camps with their humanity intact were those who had a meaning or purpose in their life, beyond mere brute survival.  I added 'and my hope is that if a sense of purpose makes it possible to hang onto your humanity even in a concentration camp, then maybe it's possible in a University,' or words to that effect.

My intention, of course, was not to belittle the unspeakable evils of the Nazi camps; rather to use humour's capacity for provoking a sharp change of perspective, to help people reflect that however disempowered and frustrated they may feel at work in a University, at times, they have vastly more power and freedom than Frankl had; and along with that, the idea that holding onto a clear sense of purpose is valuable when we do feel disempowered and frustrated.

But clearly, that was not the message received, by at least one person.

I am very sorry for that, and particularly as it detracted from that individual's (and possibly others') learning from, and enjoyment of, the session.

But I am also reluctant to withdraw from taking the risk of making jokes. Maybe that joke was ill-judged (and I'll be interested in others' views on that) but I think that most jokes carry a risk. Yet I would not want to eliminate them all together, as a humourless workplace seems a high price to pay.

I need to think further about this - both the particular joke and the broader principle...

In the meantime, here is Viktor Frankl. I am glad to see he uses humour, though possibly with better taste than I do.

Feedback

I blogged recently (a couple of times in fact) about invisible facilitation (here and here).  I concluded the first of these posts with the reflection: 'So I think we should trust our clients (who, after all, want an effective event, not a showboating facilitator) to recognise our contribution, and not worry about being seen to perform.'

I suppose that was always tempting fate: a recent feedback form from a team awayday I ran included this comment from one participant: 'Fellow seemed to be half asleep. Occasionally popped up to say something and that was about it.’

That did make me smile, as it is exactly what I fear people may think when I work in that mode.  However, I was able to smile sincerely to myself (and not just wryly) as all the others who attended had a different view, and their feedback was that the awayday had been well run and achieved its goals.

But don't say I didn't warn you...

Learning to communicate

I like to think I am pretty good at communicating, but over the last week or two, I have really learned something new - something that can be summed up as Assert, then Justify. The idea is to be crystal clear from the outset about the purpose of the communication, and state that.

My preferred style, which works well with groups or in one-to-one conversations, is a narrative approach. I introduce a theme, develop and explore it, and reach some kind of conclusion.

However, feedback has been converging on me from different directions. This is not always the style to use.

So on the one hand, Andrew Derrington, who has been giving me feedback on my book, has got me to re-write a chapter using this approach.  I had written it as a set of case studies, from which I assumed the intelligent reader would be able to derive some learning.

He has persuaded me to try writing a proper introduction to the chapter, in which I give the reader a preview of what is covered and why, therefore, the reader should bother to go any further.  Likewise, he has go me to write a proper summary at the end, reminding the reader of the key learning points.

I have to say, the chapter is much better now: I think he is right.

Also, working with Karen Ainley of Mosaic, this week, I got very similar feedback.  We did a radio interview, and as usual I told a good story. She was very positive in her feedback about my narrative style and so on, but said the same thing: I needed to give listeners a reason to listen from the very start: what am I going to say that is interesting.

So I am going to work hard on this: firstly thinking much more consciously about which approach to use when, and secondly to practice Assert, then Justify until it becomes as comfortable part of my repertoire as telling a good story.

Invisible Facilitation

I have been musing on visibility and invisibility of late.  Recently I have presented a number of conference sessions, runs some development workshops, and facilitated awaydays for a number of organisations.

Clearly, when speaking at a conference one is in the spotlight.  Whilst I frequently include quite high levels of participation, there is an expectation that the presenter takes centre stage and delivers some insight.

The same is true when running workshops.  There is more scope for participative and co-created learning, but nonetheless, people expect a certain amount of information to be delivered by the person at the front of the room.

But with the facilitated awaydays, I often think the best thing is for the facilitator to be invisible.  

Frequently my most important work is done in advance of the day:

• helping define what the issues are that need addressing 
• devising the best process for addressing them, 
• helping position people to engage positively with them; 

and so on. On the day itself, I may take a  much less visible  role.


Quiet roles a facilitator may fulfil (sometimes merely by his or her presence and manner) include:

• creating and sustaining a safe and positive space for the conversation, 
• agreeing and sustaining ground rules, 
• managing the time so participants can focus on the issues, 
• summarising discussions and moving the agenda on; and 
• ensuring clear next steps are agreed.

One of the facilitator’s concerns, of course, may be that if she or he is not seen to be doing very much, people may conclude that the role is unnecessary, or the particular facilitator is incompetent.  But my experience is the reverse. I often hear tales of (and occasionally observe) facilitators who do too much - who need to be in the limelight for whatever reason.  

But the feedback I get from clients when I seem to do very little is almost always very supportive: here is a quotation from one:  Especial thanks to Andrew.   It takes real skill to be so totally unobtrusive, and yet completely in control!  

So I think we should trust our clients (who, after all, want an effective event, not a showboating facilitator) to recognise our contribution, and not worry about being seen to perform.

Cardiff Futures

Following its success at Newcastle and Essex Universities, it was not surprising that Colin Riordan, the new VC at Cardiff, should launch the Futures Programme there more or less on arrival.

It was, after all, his brainchild at Faculty level in Newcastle (where it was shortlisted for Times Higher Award in 2008, and where a programme for professors using a similar philosophy and approach has just won a THE Award this year); and it was he who ran it at a University Level at Essex.

Despite this history of success, both he and I were aware that Cardiff would be different. For a start, it is a much larger institution than Essex (or Newcastle's HASS Faculty), and also much more diverse.  Previously we had had delegates almost entirely from a humanities background: this time we are including medics and scientists.

So we were delighted to see the consolidated feedback from participants for the first module, which was as positive (or indeed more positive) than any we have previously seen.

We have just run the second module, focussing on Finance: that always has the risk of being a bit dry, but thanks to great presentations from our guest speaker Gill Ball, FD of Birmingham University, and participative sessions run by Cardiff's own FD and the Deputy VC, all participants seemed to engage and find the topic both relevant and interesting.

We also launched the Action Learning Sets, which form an integral part of the programme, and they seemed to go well, too.  Due to time constraints, we use what I would term Brief Action Learning, but the methodology stands up very well even in very short sessions.

Needless to say, I await the feedback summary from this second module with interest.

Awayday Feedback

A while back I ran an awayday for the DMOC research group at Newcastle University.  It was a very buzzy day: they seemed a really good group.

So I was naturally pleased to see the feedback they had submitted to the University about the day, which was very positive.  But what was even more pleasing was running into a couple of people this week.  One had attended the day, and said that it had made a real difference.  The other was somebody working in the same building, who hadn't known I'd been involved with them, who commented quite unprompted on how much more vibrant their area seems to be now.

I note these things against those days when I doubt the value of my work, my competence etc, as one does from time to time...

Disclaimer

Just received a lovely email from a participant on one of my programmes a while back, including:


Come to think of it, perhaps you should have a disclaimer (cf. disclaimers on cigarette packages) on your training courses: "This may significantly affect your life." ;-)


I love the idea of disclaimers, and may try to work up some others.