WORK SYSTEMS AFFILIATES BLOG

3 Tips for Organizational Change in the Season of Renewal

  

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

  

  

This time of year, many of us honor traditions that go back several millennia, and some more recent traditions sponsored by chocolate bar companies.  Within each of these, there are metaphors for which we each make our own meaning, and so I will put on the “systemic organizational change” glasses and relate it to those metaphors.

Here are three tips to take away from this season and apply anywhere in your world:

1. Pick one thing to purge – I’m sure there is at least one thing in your organization that doesn’t add value or worse, does damage.  Make a list of these things and pick one to “give up” for a test period of 2 months. Chances are that you will not miss them at the end of that time and choose to permanently make the change. Suggesting the trial period lowers some of the fear people have but gives you an opportunity to demonstrate the value of making the change.
2. Create a fun challenge – Remember the Easter egg hunt of your youth (or earlier today)? It’s much more fun to pursue something of worth than to just to have it given to you. To just present the changes as a finished product versus setting the stage for those involved to find the valuable tidbits of the path forward leaves people disengaged and less likely to embrace the change. Accomplishing the goals through shared (and fun) challenge will ensure that  the change is seen as a sweet thing to be enjoyed.
3. Change comes in waves – Just like the daffodils come first, then the tulips and then the irises, positive change comes in waves. Make sure you notice and appreciate each new bloom of change that happens. And realize that some things have to come before others naturally.  Finally, just like cultivated pansies, don’t be afraid to plant some progress to keep the momentum moving forward.

Enjoy the growing daylight and warmth and the general mood improvement that goes with these. Hopefully this lets everyone be a little more open to new change that will be the seed of growth, ready to harvest in the fall.

Happy Spring!

Is a Causal Loop Diagram Just Twisted Linear Logic?

  

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

  

  

When helping our clients move from linear to systemic thinking, we introduce them to causal loop diagrams which show the interaction of variables within a system. The first step is to have them construct a two-variable causal loop diagram. This usually comes from a linear representation of a problem, for example, weight gain:

As food consumption goes up, weight goes up. To solve this common linear problem, many of us attack "food consumption" with the latest miracle method for reducing food consumption. We lose 60 pounds in 60 days - success!...until we gain 60 pounds in 30 days when we are off the diet.

So let's take this linear representation of the problem and turn it into the beginnings of a non-linear one.

Hmmm...so now you have to think about how your weight influences your food consumption. "Are you just giving me the double-talk?" you ask. Aren't we just turning logic back upon itself to confuse the issue? Yes and no.

We are trained from a very early age to analyze and see just one or two possible causes and pick the cause that we think is most creating the problem. Think about math and science - there is usually one, and only one, variable to solve for. One right answer. No need for discovery, just find the right answer and move along.

There is nothing wrong with this until you come across a recurring problem that can't seem to be permanently solved, such as weight gain. In those types of problems, you never really "fix" it permanently, but you do work within your system to influence the fluctuations.

So back to our example. When you ask the question "How does gaining (or losing) weight impact my food consumption?" you have to dig a little deeper to find answers that are not so obvious.

• As I gain weight, I don't feel good about how I look.
• Because I feel bad, I soothe myself with comfort food.
• As I gain weight, it's more difficult to exercise.

Now, the diagram looks something like this:

What I've done in this posting is to walk you through each linear relationship that exists at each connection point (we call them leverage points). Because we can all understand these, we understand the next level of thinking when we combine them.

Where we are limited as humans is that research has demonstrated that we only process between 3-7 concepts at one time. So, once we start to build out the causal loops, we soon exceed that number, which is why it's more natural to focus only on the direct relationship. By expanding and linking linear relationships, we can form the systemic nature of the problem we face, one interaction at a time.

So why isn't this considered a more complicated way of representing things in a linear fashion?

Three reasons:

1. You can see from our quick example that there are three influence loops acting upon our weight. They don't necessarily act at the same pace or with the same force, making it unpredictable.
2. Because systemic problems involve humans, the strongest contributing factor for one individual my be different for another. Thus, the same causal loop diagram produces different results for different people.
3. These types of decisions or problems are never-ending. You will always have to manage your weight, and the factors that impact that today could change in the future as you age.

So, in summary, the next time you are trying to solve a recurring problem, take these 3 steps to expand your thinking:

1. Look at the "effect" and ask "How does the 'effect' influence the 'cause'?
2. Look at each of the factors and ask "What influences this factor?"
3. Observe the large set of factors and the inter-relationships and see if there is a key factor that wasn't discovered in the first two questions but completes the logic of the loop.

This will give you plenty to begin thinking systemically about a problem that once appeared as a linear one. More importantly, you can begin to have conversations with others by walking them through your systemic logic as I have done here, one interaction at a time. You may or may not want to show them a completed causal loop diagram, as they are not the most intuitive to grasp if you haven't walked through each smaller relationship.

So, what do you think? Is the systems thinking tool known as a causal loop diagram just linear logic twisted back upon itself, or do you think it represents a new way for you to think systemically about a problem? We welcome your comments!

Are Creative People Less Ethical? A Quick Systems Thinking View

  

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

  

  

I came across a working paper this week called "The Dark Side of Creativity - Original Thinkers Can be More Dishonest" in which the authors, Francesca Gino of Harvard University and Dan Ariely of Duke paint a picture of creativity generating unethical behavior.

Specifically, in their conclusions appeared these words "we demonstrated that ... a creative personality ... promotes individuals’ motivation to think creatively, such that higher scores on dispositional creativity ... lead to an increased motivation to think outside the box. In turn, this increased motivation promotes dishonesty."

First off, this is an example of the typical problem solving approach where we focus on trying to describe (in a novel way) the linear relationship between two things, in this case, creativity and dishonesty. This is what research is supposed to do I guess, but the authors are trying too hard to solve for their particular equation and not trying to find and leverage all factors that work together with creativity to drive dishonesty.

The beginning of a causal loop diagram of the above paragraph would look something like this:

I will grant the authors that those who are dishonest have a high likelihood of being creative. My guess is that those dishonest folks who lack creativity don't make it very far in their career of dishonesty.

When I think systemically about ethics, there are other factors that drive dishonesty. Here are three off the top of my head:

1. Ability to admit/own mistakes - If I am not comfortable admitting my mistakes, I will be more likely to be dishonest on some level in order to cover them up. My creativity can help me succeed at the cover-up, but the drive is my inability to take responsibility.
2. Expectations of success - Wall Street analysts, boards of directors and customers like to think positively about the future returns on investments. When the future arrives and isn't as shiny as they'd hoped, we may want to "spin" the results so that we don't incur the negative consequences. Related to this is that no one is comfortable with a leader saying "I don't know", so once again, he or she might make up information that isn't factual.
3. Focus on rule rigidity - The more an organization depends on written rules for guidance and not the ability to analyze the assumptions related to a decision, people are more likely to be dishonest. Rules can't take care of every situation, and when that happens, having flexibility to step away from the rulebook, put on your thinking cap and discuss assumptions and ramifications keeps the decision out of the darkness and above board. Strict adherence and interpretation of rules seems to drive dishonesty up.

Now the beginnings of a causal loop diagram might look like this:

In all three of these situations, creativity may be an accomplice, increasing because of a shrinking honesty, but it's not a perpetrator of dishonesty. The drivers exist elsewhere in the ethics system, in this case, leaning hard on the motivation to think outside the box.

What do you think? Should organizations be wary of creative types? Have you found creative people to be dishonest? Have you seen dishonest people who aren't creative? Leave a comment!

Top 3 Ways That Systems Thinking Fails in Problem Solving

  

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

  

  

I know we preach that systems thinking is a great set of concepts and tools to solve problems, but that statement hasn't sat comfortably with me for some reason. Today, it dawned on me why this is so, leading to this post. What follows comes from the experience and observation of helping others see the benefit of using systems thinking, or, for that matter, anything different from what they are using.

One of the biggest assumptions I think we make as systems thinking afficionados, including gurus such as Peter Senge and Daniel Kim, is that everyone else naturally sees the problems the way we see them, and therefore can easily switch to using our viewpoint (tools and concepts) to address the problem.

Maybe this is why systems thinking has taken off in the education field - young students have fewer pre-conceived notions of the world and can see new perspectives earlier. If you are in that crowd, please chime in via the comments.

I am directing this post mostly at those of us dealing with mature organizations where complexity has created dynamic problems that haunt the company's leadership.

So here are my top 3 ways to fail at using systems thinking tools and concepts to properly solve those dynamic problems:

1. Use the same words, keep the same mindset - When we use the phrase "problem solving", more often than not, the picture that comes to mind is one of solving for the right answer to the problem.
   
   Instead of looking at it as a" problem to fix", let's look at it as a "new opportunity to be discovered" around our desired outcome.
   
   I don't know about you, but the picture in my head when I hear those two phrases differs drastically. To try to sum up the different pictures, the former is a pinpoint focus and the latter is a wider search pattern. This leads me to the next way to fail:
2. Assume that the orignal problem statement was useful - Sometimes systems thinking will be called in "off the bench" for a problem because a previous player such as six sigma or Kepner-Tregoe only took it so far. Thus, it's very natural to carry forward the definition and framework of the problem into the systems thinking application.
   
   We like to use the phrase "This analysis tells the story of..." when creating problem statements for systems thinking.
   
   This gets away from the pinpoint focus (usually on the symptom) to describing a situation that may have multiple factors interacting to produce the unwanted results. Over the course of working with a team, this story changes as we dive deeper into the situation.
3. Make systems thinking the "flavor-of-the-day" program that replaces a previous flavor - This rule can be applied to any new change/improvement effort, but it's especially important to those who are implenting the use of systems thinking tools and concepts.
   
   Just as a matter of inegrity, we can't say that there is only one approach to addressing problems. Systems thinking has to work together with all current and future formal problem-solving programs. Finding ways to connect them all together (see Battle Royale: Systems Thinking VS Six Sigma) will only strenghthen your organization's ability to know what kind of issue they are facing and how to best address it.

In re-reading those 3 reasons for myself, I realize there is a lot of focus on words, semantics and mental images. These are where our assumptions are constructed and hidden (unintentionally). This post was an exercise for me to take an honest look at words I've been using related to systems thinking to see what assumptions may be lurking there that prevent me from fully helping others gain maximum benefit from systems thinking.

What about you? Where has systems thinking let you down? How has it been helpful to you? What assumptions did you have to overcome in order to use it more effectively?

Does Data Kill Leadership? Can Systems Thinking Restore Intuition?

  

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

  

  

When I first got involved with helping organizations perform better, I mostly dealt with, and therefore learned from, engineers who saw everything as logical, step-by-step programs. Even now, many clients want a "process" for finding a better way to run their companies.

There is a strong focus on the logical, rational and data-driven analysis of making business decisions. Yet, some of the engineers-as-leaders used what I call intuition to take companies in new directions.

I'm sure they aren't comfortable using the word "intuition", being process-driven engineers. But I think these particular leaders were systemic thinkers and used systems thinking tools like Concept Engineering, a "customer-centered process for clarifying the 'fuzzy front end' of the product development process", to bridge the gap between the right and left brain. Tools such as these use a process to make intuition visible (and eventually quantifiable).

Intuition is perceived by many to be irrational, illogical and based on unexplainable emotions/feelings rather than facts. Thus, it is not seen as a good basis for making decisions. The current combination of an environment of caution and seemingly infinite access to information creates a strong lean toward data-driven decisions.

In my research on the use of intuition in leadership, one particular paper influences this particular post: "Intuition: A Needed Component of Leadership for Decision-Making In Today's Technology Driven Air Force "by Douglas J. Slater, Ch, Lt Col, USAF

His definition of intuition is "the ability to subconsciously access and combine previous experiences, knowledge and life situations in a rational non-linear style to arrive at a conclusion that does not have readily apparent and communicable logical fact based data to support the conclusion."

I think this definition meshes well with systems thinking for 3 reasons:

1. The concept of non-linearity is not only common to both but makes up a substantial part of their respective foundations.
2. Lack of apparent data to support conclusions with intuition mirrors the inability of existing data to solve a recurring, dynamic problem. In both situations, it takes a synthesis of seemingly unrelated information to create a new way to look at the decision or problem.
3. The subconcious combination of knowledge and experience - with a data-driven approach, we use only "known" and familiar patterns to size up the new decision. This limits the outcome to an existing, non-unique framework. In systems thinking, we make a point of moving past those pre-conceived notions and open up to new ideas that lead to unique choices. 

I know that I tend to use intuition more than hard data to determine the direction of a decision, but I have struggled with trying to convince others of my ideas.

Systems thinking tools and concepts like causal loop diagrams have helped me to represent and make visible my thinking and logic. This at least gets everyone to a point of understanding about the line of reasoning I am using, even if I can't describe how I arrived there.

At this point, facts and figures (and other opinions disguised as facts and figures) can be thrown at my model and we can uncover assumptions to test or find good reasons to kill the idea.

Those with a data-bias might choose a path that is limited by the confines (safety) of the data, or may request more data in order to make the decision (analysis paralysis). At a strategic level, such an approach lacks creativity and therefore may not create a robust outcome.

On the other hand, a decision made without some grounding in facts and data can lead to a similarly ineffective and wasteful choice.

So what's a growing leader to do?

We believe that you have several leadership responsibilities, the first and formost of which is to develop yourself. Here are 3 suggestions for bringing intuition back into your leadership style for better decisions:

1. Per the Slater paper above, utilize assessments such as Meyers-Briggs to determine your style. "Sensing" would indicate a primary focus on data and "Intuition" is self-explanitory.
2. Partner with those who see the world differently and listen to them. If you are highly intuitive, have the courage to speak up even when you don't have data. If you are data-driven, have the courage to ask "What am I missing?"
3. Find development opportunities that focus on building your intuitive strength. These might include systems thinking workshops for those caught up in data or seminars that help you present intuitive concepts to others who don't see what you see.

I have benefited from several of these development experiences and I find it easier to present my ideas and to know when to push others past the data into unfamiliar territory or incorporate the data into my thinking and adjust my synthesis.

With that last thought, please share your experience of using intuition and data together to make solid decisions! Has data killed your leadership? Has intuition ruined it? What has helped?

Toss Your Organizational GPS & Get Lost - Finding Breakthrough Ideas

  

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

  

  

Getting lost used to be one of my favorite things to do.

Now I worry that I "should" be somewhere on a schedule...you know, fully in control of the situation.

Problem is, that leaves no room for new ideas and thoughts.

I think I liked getting lost because I was excited to learn new routes, places and people. Now we have GPS that gives us the mindless directions we don't have to remember. How many times have you driven the same route via GPS and then tried to do it without the GPS? If you are like me, I couldn't recall the route.

When I think back to yesteryear (not waxing nostalgic, just using that phrase for effect), all I needed was a look at a map, a friend's directions of landmarks and maybe the kindness of strangers to learn a route the first time I drove it. I wasn't exactly getting lost at that point, but was so looking forward to the ride because I didn't have 100% certainty.

So, how do we apply this to our business or organization to improve the strategic direction and results? To create breakthrough systemic change, think about applying the following:

1. Get in the car and drive - find a methaphorical road you've never been on: Take an hour every week to search for and read about something that you think has no relevance to your business. The search results will have something that calls to you - follow it and see where it leads you. Extra points if you find a blog, as they tend to have other links to other places.
2. "The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski) - Look at the map for general directions to keep your bearings, but realize that the even the most up-to-date technology like GPS cannot predict real-time conditions. Be adaptable and prepared to use the side roads to both avoid problems and take advantage of opportunities. In the business environment, "side roads" such as competitors, consultants or acquisitions might get you through roadblocks you hadn't anticipated.
3. Sherpas are sometimes more helpful than gurus - someone who has walked the trail a hundred times will know the nuances of it and might show you a thought-inspiring local attraction that isn't on the map. In your business, these can be customers, line workers and internal "deviants". Observing and listening to these groups will give you insights on where to go next.

In this age of information accessibility and speed, it's easy to stay with everything we know and the certainty of the data. But until you "get lost", you won't have the context of your monthly marketing or manufacturing reports.

Think about the last time you drove down a new road for the first time. You were creating a new pattern in your mind, one that didn't exist before, of how to find a new destination. This new pattern creation is where truly transformative change can take place. It can only take place if you leave the familiar roads, forget your fear and be open to getting lost.

Please share your experience and ideas around exploring uncharted territory to find new destinations for your organization!

Battle Royale - Systems Thinking Versus Six Sigma!

  

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

  

  

Seems like organizations only make room for one methodology to address problem solving or decision making. Usually, a new executive comes into the company or a current executive hears about a cure-all approach that saved another company and mandates its implementation.

You've been a part of this I'll bet. And we've seen it. It's going to happen again. We just don't want you to do this with systems thinking, which is why we want to connect two seemingly opposite methodologies, Six Sigma and Systems Thinking.

As we pointed out in a previous blog post, "Don't Buy the Hype, Systems Thinking is NOT the Answer!", unless Systems Thinking fits into your business planning and becomes strategically integrated, it won't do you much good as a mere training course.

The same is true for approaches such as Six Sigma. There will be useful but limited application of the tools, but strategic traction will be elusive.

And when we have talked about Systems Thinking with companies who are currently using Six Sigma, they often see it as an "either-or" arrangement and tell us they are using Six Sigma for their problem-solving.

Shame on us for not explaining the value of Systems Thinking beyond problem-solving and the value it brings to an approach such as Six Sigma. Let's do this now.

Within any organization, there are processes where all variables are known and able to be controlled (even if they aren't controlled at the moment). Classic Six Sigma value is realized here, where linear processes are deconstructed, analyzed and rebuilt with new controls in place to create a predictable outcome. The best applications are on manufacturing problems.

A good Master Black Belt will also choose problems that exist within clear boundaries and where the sponsor has a high degree of control over the components. This produces a high likelihood of success, measurable results and removes defects from the process. The process is now "doing things right".

Systems Thinking advocates are chomping at the bit, I can feel it. Hold on Hoss, here comes your glory....

Systems Thinking can't compete with Six Sigma on solving linear problems such as manufacturing defects. (High-fives in the Six Sigma camp!) Actually, we don't really want Systems Thinking to compete with Six Sigma at all.

There are other problems in companies where not all variables are known and exist both in and outside of a given boundary. They also may not be able to be controlled to create predictability. Things such as customer satisfaction or employee turnover fall into this category.

Here is where Systems Thinking is more useful than Six Sigma. By constructing a model of the interactions surrounding a problem, you can test different scenarios and find high-impact leverage points among the systemic variables. The result is "doing the right thing" by working on the biggest contributors to the problem. You won't completely "fix" the problem because of it's dynamic nature, but in Six Sigma speak, you can bring it into acceptable limits.

In my experience and opinion, the most powerful strategic problem-solving approach is using both Six Sigma and Systems Thinking in tandem to "do the right things the right way" (This is a Chris Argyris idea).

Think about it - if you identify high-impact strategic variables and one or two of those contain linear problems that are contributing to the larger problem, using Six Sigma would be my choice. And vice-versa, sometimes Six Sigma tries to solve a problem, usually one that relies heavily on people, and the results are unimpressive and hard to measure.

Realize that when you choose to implement either Six Sigma or Systems Thinking, you are missing half of the equation. Also realize that it takes time for anything new to gain acceptance, and while Six Sigma will produce results quickly, Systems Thinking will help produce the right strategic results over time.

Once you get good at using both together to solve existing problems, you can turn them loose on strategic decisions for future opportunities. This is where the true strength lies, identifying strategic opportunities with Systems Thinking and using Six Sigma to quickly operationalize those ideas.

What has been your experience? Where do you stand on the either-or issue? Let us know by commenting below!

Physics Says You Can't Change Organizational Inertia - Now What??

  

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

  

  

There seem to be quite a few questions out there in organizational development land about organizational inertia. "How do you change it?" is a big one.

This got me thinking about my high school physics class. Yes, it was many, many moons ago, but Mr. Nicotera would be proud to know that deep in my gray matter, I knew that you can't just change inertia, as it is a constant property of matter, whether at rest or in motion.

Search for yourself (lot's of conflicting info out there), but here's a quick physics lesson as it relates to inertia:

Inertia is the property of matter (more specifically, mass) that is the resistance of an object to change it's state of motion or rest. The resistance to change is constant. The only way to change inertia is to change mass.

I am going to suggest that instead of talking about organizational inertia, we re-frame the problem as one of organizational momentum. When a force is applied to a mass, it gains velocity, and when you work through the brainiac formula with a lot of Greek letters in it, the result is momentum.

Now, momentum can be changed, but not without great effort and thought, at least when it comes to an organization. Momentum is actually a system property, and within a given system, doesn't change. A force outside the system must act upon the system for a long enough period of time to have any effect on changing the momentum.

Here's where systems thinking can be useful, and where most change efforts end up asking that question "How do we deal with organizational inertia?".

From the mini physics lesson above, here are three concepts related to successful change in an organization:

1. You can't effect change by standing in front of something that has great momentum, attempting to stop it. You'll get flattened. (My early playground and late corporate experience jives with this, trust me, it's true)
2. A force outside the system must act upon it in order to change the properties of the system. This happens whether you like it or not, think about the impact of this recession on your business.
3. The only type of systemic change that takes 10 minutes is catastrophic in nature. Otherwise, you must apply the outside forces for a long enough time to make change stick. This is where our patience (or lack thereof) works against us and leads us back to the forums asking about organizational inertia.

So what are the forces outside your organization that can change it's systemic momentum? In systems thinking speak, we refer to these as hidden or unknown variables.

Here are some ideas for identifying these forces, best directed at the senior-most executives and board of directors in your company. Project managers, human resource professionals and middle managers can apply these principles in their respecive solar systems, but will be limited on changing the entire galaxy known as your company.

1. Create and execute a disciplined "sense and respond" routine that includes business activities you are not in currently and an external view across unrelated industries or market segments. Look for anecdotal and intuitive observations that might indicate a future shift. With real-time network technology like Twitter, you can encourage staff to "listen" and pass potential tidbits to you.
2. Be with your customer or end user and see what they do and don't do with your product. This is not a lunch date nor a sales call, this is you and your leadership team going to End-User Land and being curious about everything that surrounds your product in the user's world. Ask questions of clarification, take note of the answers (or lack thereof) and don't try to fix or sell anything during these observations. Just learn.
3. You and your leadership team should report your findings back to your workers. Have them react to the findings (again, utilize the network technology) and be open to everything. Don't provide solutions to what you saw, just the raw information and maybe some conclusions, but take no action other than having staff beat the report around to make it stronger.

Once you have a solid group of forces (a.k.a. variables), you can begin to build different models that show influence on your business and between each other. You'll discover even more unknown forces to your models.

Your job as top executive is not to have all the answers, it's to be able to scan the horizon for possible opportunities where you can use your current strengths to enter new, growing markets. Once you identify a possible shift, your team is more capable than you in creating a response, but you must lead them.

You will have to run interference for the new idea because your cash-cow-of-the-moment creates the momentum that continues everyone on the same path. Inertia, or the resistance to change the current state of motion, applies here. By applying new force in a new direction to the current mass of your company, you will change the momentum and achieve new growth.

People will be so excited about the new opportunities that the questions about inertia will be replaced with questions like "How are we going to hire 300 people in the next two months?!"

Bottom line: Look for ways to gain momentum, forget inertia and always respect gravity!

Leadership Versus Leaders - Which Usually Wins?

  

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

  

  

I read an article last week reflecting on the question of "Are we hard-wired to always want or need a leader (someone in charge)?". The recent events in Egypt served as the canvas on which the author was painting his opinion.

To me, there is a distinct difference between "leaders" and "leadership". Leaders being "needed" puts the cart before the horse. Leadership is not needed, it emerges, usually as a popular idea. Once this happens, it is embodied in some form of structure. That's what we humans are good at, creating a system to help us understand and conrol our world.

Quite often in our history, the leadership has been embodied in a person or a group of people with hierarchical structure to whom others look for answers. Just like in any system, every decision that's made then drives intended and unintended consequences. It's the latter that usually blind-sides the leaders in power and usually in a crisis state.

This hierarchy model conveniently (in my opinion) transfers responsibility in the eyes of the followers to the "leader". I personally may feel less responsible to exercise my leadership since someone else is doing that. Just look at voter numbers in the United States, where 50% turnout is considered great.

The question is, what form will future leadership take? Dismiss Twitter, Facebook and other social media tools if you like, but they are driving an information decentralization that affects the bedrock of current leadership models.

I don't think we are hard wired for wanting someone at the top. It's probably more like a cross between millennia of "natural selection" and conditioning by traditional organizational structures. As with events in Egypt, once we individually take more responsibility for exercising leadership, "leaders" will become temporary facilitators instead of permanent directors.

What's your take on this? What "systems" have you created in the name of leadership to try to control your organization? What unintended consequences have you seen as a result?

Turn Power Struggle Into Project Success - A Change Management Tip

  

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

  

  

The insights in this blog post are solely for my benefit and development. But, just in case there is another soul on this planet who easily gets into power struggles, I thought I'd share my experience in case it can help you.

My wife and I are embarking on a complete renovation (takin' 'er to the studs!...the house, that is) of a recently purchased house. This week, as part of our building permit application, I had to submit specific details about which gas fireplace we were going to install. Since we didn't submit it with the original building permit (we didn't know this was required, wasn't on the "Guided Process" of the "Easy Permits" section of the website), the inspector wanted to begin an additional permit with an additional fee and a little more delay.

I'm not trying to build my case, but you can see the setup here. And if you know me, you know that I am waiting for Captain Picard to say "Engage!" in his Victorian theater accent...

Yes, I originally referenced it as a "power trip" in my notes, but if I take full leadership responsibility, it's really a "power struggle", half of which is mine.

I thought I had a relevant piece of information that might persuade the inspector to see my side of it. That was my first mistake, how I thought about it. "Getting him to see my side" only leads me into taking a stance and in this case, for the inspector to dig into his position.

Because he has the rules, regs and authority on his side, his power base is derived from defending those rules and regs with his authority. But, I took a path I normally don't take (I've read about it and seen it demonstrated in fancy corporate leadership videos).

I did state that I wasn't aware that the fireplace specs were required, maybe I missed something, but it wasn't indicated on the application or the website. The old me would have continued his back and forth of "Well, the building code is 14 inches thick, you can't expect us to put every little thing required on the application" with the inspector. I would have wanted to prove the point that they darned well should have had something about the fireplace, a common renovation feature, on that application!

Instead, I remembered that my goal was to get the fireplace specs into the original permit without additonal fees or delays. So, I asked for that. But it was in the tone (not these words) of, "Okay, you got me, but will you see it in your heart to make an exception in this case?"

After 2-3 seconds of awkward silence while he looked through the papers, he said "If you can get me two copies of this before the end of the day, I'll include it in the original permit."

.....What? Okay! I'll be right back!

So, long story short, the permit was ready the next day. I know there are those out there for whom this comes easily, but admittedly, I'm not one of them. Lots of relearning for me. So in your project and change management efforts, when you encounter similar human obstacles, keep these three things in mind:

1. State your case once, nicely, innocently and factually. Then, suck up your ego and ask them to please make an exception this one time. You have to ask them, you can't demand them. You have to be okay with "no" because, quite frankly, you're already at no.
2. In asking for help, realize that you can switch their power base from that of being ruling authority of the conversation, to that of being able to "grant" you something for which you will be indebted to them.
3. When you succeed, you will have actually strengthened the relationship because you are able to sing his praises outside of the discussion, thus building his credibility with others and building your credibility with him.

The power of benevolece trumps the power of "no". The desire to grant help to somebody is at our core. It's just that some of us want to feel more in control than others.

Rememer this when figuring out the power structure in an organization or with an individual. Use it to your of advantage so that you can get what you need for your project and give them what they want in terms of retaining their power. Everybody is happier and Captain Picard gets to say "Lower the shields!"

Related Resources:
Read one our free articles: How Change Efforts Succeed