Organisational Therapy

Are You Brave Enough?

“When Greg first met Butch Johnson, he was deeply impressed by Butch’s insight into the way organizations and leaders behave.
Butch taught him that the psychological limit of the leader inevitably becomes the psychological limit of the organization.
Very few top managers understand their own psychological limit, how it pervades the organization, and how they should change their profile.”
~ Ray Immelman, Great Boss, Dead Boss

For me, one word sums up this idea of “psychological limit” better than any other: Cojones (please don’t get hung up on the masculine connotation, women have cojones too).

In many of my clients over the years, I have observed that a key limitation (a.k.a. constraint) on their rightshifting journey has been their cojones, or more exactly their lack of thereof. This is what Ray Immelman is writing about in the above passage (the book explains the idea in greater depth). In a nutshell, he advises:

“Strong tribal leaders have capable mentors whose psychological limits exceed their own.”

There’s another word, not these days in widespread use, which also speaks to this issue: mettle.

met·tle/ˈmetl/
Noun:
1. A person’s ability to cope well with difficulties or to face a demanding situation in a spirited and resilient way.
2. Courage and fortitude: a man of mettle.
3. Character, disposition or temperament: a man of fine mettle.

The word has its root in the Greek, “metal”, with its connotation of mining, and digging deep, as well as the stuff of which we are made.

Organisational Mettle

From my perspective as an organisational therapist, I see organisations failing to step up and be all they can be, through a lack of organisational mettle. It’s often because things are too comfortable, too regular, with folks settled into a routine which seems to meet their personal and individual needs – at least, after a fashion.

I suspect it was…the old story of the implacable necessity of a man having honour within his own natural spirit. A man cannot live and temper his mettle without such honour. There is deep in him a sense of the heroic quest; and our modern way of life, with its emphasis on security, its distrust of the unknown and its elevation of abstract collective values has repressed the heroic impulse to a degree that may produce the most dangerous consequences.
~ Laurens Van der Post

Where does somebody’s mettle come from? Similar to my recent question regarding integrity – is mettle innate, or can it be learned, developed, expanded? And what is at the heart of organisational mettle?

“The true test of one’s mettle is how many times [or how long] you will try before you give up.”
~ Stephen Richards

Courage

For an insight into the source of mettle, we might consider the closely associated idea of courage. Courage comes – literally and metaphorically – from cœur (French) or heart.

“Courage is the most important of the virtues, because without courage you can’t practice any other virtue consistently. You can practice any virtue erratically, but nothing consistently without courage.”
~ Maya Angelou

Chinese and eastern traditions see courage as deriving from love. I find comfort in this.

What would you, your team, your organisation be capable of with limitless courage? Or even just a little more? How is your mettle related to the results you’re presently capable of achieving?

Judgement

I’m minded to caution – myself included – against the temptation to rush to judgement on individuals or organisations. Saying – or even thinking – “these folks need more courage” seems like it might be unhelpful from the perspective of therapy and e.g. nonviolent communication. Better to ask “how do you feel about the need for courage, the role of mettle, the psychological limits round here?”

Or, from an appreciative enquiry perspective:

“How much courage do folks here have already? How can we use it better? Do we need to build and develop it further, do we need more courage (in order to take us where we’d like to go)?”

Or, the Miracle Question from Solution Focused Brief Therapy:

“So, when you wake up tomorrow morning, what might be the small change, the thing you first notice, that will make you say to yourself, ‘Wow, something must have happened—we have broken through our psychological limits!’”?”

Or even, simply:

“What would you like to have happen? Is mettle necessary to that?”

I feel it’s a topic worthy of inquiry and discussion. And worthy of an open mind, too.

“The bitterest tears shed over graves are for words left unsaid and deeds left undone.”
~ Harriet Beecher Stowe

How about you? How do you feel about the need for courage, the role of mettle and the issue of psychological limits in organisational effectiveness? In your organisation? In your own life?

– Bob

My Organisational Psychotherapy Toolkit

November 3, 2012

Dialogue, Organisational Therapy, Psychology

11 Comments

My Organisational Psychotherapy Toolkit

When in a day of meetings last week, at one point we each introducing ourselves in a round-robin fashion. I naturally explained my chosen and preferred role these days – that of Organisational Psychotherapist. Given the room was full of software folks, I expected a few blank faces. What I did not expect was the ripple of schoolboy sniggering that ensued. Never mind. I learned something.

In the next break I was gratified – and my faith somewhat restored – in that some folks came up to me and asked some incisive questions about the concept of organisational psychotherapy. One of these questions was about the means and techniques at the disposal of the Organisational Psychotherapist. I responded by explaining about Positive Psychology and in particular Solution Focus. If I had had more time, I might have worked my way down the following list of the “tools” in my organisational psychotherapy toolkit:

Solution focus (Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg)

Solution Focus, borne out of the InterActional View studies at the Mental Research Institute, focuses attention on what’s been going right, on what works, and on what we should be doing more of. Its emphasis on taking small steps and keeping things simple means organisations can get started with it straight away.

The key principles of Solution Focus include:

Focus on solutions, not problems.
People already have the resources they need to change.
Change can happen in small steps.
Work with what you see – in-depth and up-front analysis offers few if any advantages.

Solution Focus derives from the talking therapy named Solution Focused Brief Therapy (one of a range of Brief Therapies). There’s also a great book “The Solutions Focus: Making Coaching and Change Simple” by Mark McKergow & Paul Jackson.

Dialogue (William Isaacs)

In his excellent book, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in Business and in Life, William Isaacs explains his experiences and methods regarding “The Art of Thinking Together”. Influenced by David Bohm’s work on dialogue (apparently) and making similar observations to Nancy Klein.

P.E.R.M.A. (Martin Seligman)

Professor Martin Seligman is one of the most famous living psychologists, having served as president of the APA in 1996, and making a number of important contributions to the field, including the learned helplessness conception of depression. He is also a pioneer in the field of positive psychology. According to Prof. Seligman, the PERMA acronym reminds us of five important building blocks of well-being and happiness:

Positive emotion
Engagement
Relationships
Meaning (a.k.a. purpose)
Achievement

Prof. Seligman also writes, in his book “Flourish” about PERMA and the Positive Business. His work with positive psychology provides a number of well-researched techniques for improving well-being, including:

What Went Well Today (Three Blessings)
Active and Constructive Responding
The Gratitude Letter
The Gratitude Visit
Strengths and Virtues (VIA Survey of Character Strengths )
The ABC of effective living

I believe many such positive psychology techniques, developed for the individual, have equal application in organisational therapy.

StrengthsFinder (Marcus Buckingham)

StrengthsFinder provides an assessment (online or via the book) of an individual’s key strengths. As an example, here’s mine from a few years back. The same principles (although not directly, the research) can be applied to an organisation. Just having people share knowledge about their strengths can help build understanding and strengthen relationships. This helps the process of organisational therapy.

Social Styles (Wilson Learning)

Social Styles provides a means for groups of people to relate to each other better, with actionable advice on how to modify one’s own natural communication styles to better suit others. Again, this can help build understanding and strengthen relationships. This helps the process of organisational therapy.

Clean Language (David Grove)

Clean Language is a personal therapy technique which focuses exclusively on the metaphors and vocabulary of the patient/client/questionee. The philosophy and principles underlying this are outlined in e.g. this paper.

“Many clients naturally describe their symptoms in metaphor, and we find that when the therapist simply enquires about these metaphors using their exact words, the patient’s perception of the issues begins to change.”

The “Full Syntax” of Clean language is very minimal, consisting of the following few “questions”:

And [their words].
And when [their words] …
- … what kind of [their words] is that [their words]?
- … is there anything else about [their words]?
- … that’s [their words] like what?
- … where is that [their words]?
- … whereabouts [their words]?

I myself generally start out with one more question:

Would you like something to happen / what would you like to have happen?

Aside: Finding NLP somewhat suspect these days, I see no reason to associate the two, excepting perhaps for historical reasons.

I am currently experimenting with the use of Clean Language in group situations. For example, using group metaphors to help a group to change its perceptions. Here, group can mean team, department or, ideally, the organisation as a whole.

Family Therapy (Virginia Satir)

Virginia Satir (1983) described the family as:

“An interacting unit that strives to achieve balance in relationships through the use of repetitious, circular, and predictable communication patterns.”

This sounds to me much like an organisation (a.k.a. a business). Satir saw the spousal mates as the architects of the family and contended that the marital relationship is the axis around which all other family relationships are formed. I see parallels in this with the organisation – with the executives and managers (or Core Group) as the (tacit) architects of the organisational psyche, and their (tacit) power structures as the axes around which all other relationships are formed. Thus organisational homeostasis is directly influenced by the power relationships in the organisation. Hence I find much in e.g. Virginia Satir’s approach to Family Therapy which applies (in a modified form) to organisational therapy. There’s a useful review of the field here.

Bohm Dialogue (David Bohm)

Bohm Dialogue is a technique invented by the noted physicist, philosopher and neuropsychologist David Bohm. His aim was for Bohm Dialogue to overcome or at least ameliorate the isolation and fragmentation he observed in society. I find it useful in helping to ameliorate the isolation and fragmentation we can all observe in most of our organisations today. Note: His prerequisites of equal status and “free space” can be difficult to provide in some organisations.

World Café

The World Café method is “a simple, effective, and flexible format for hosting large group dialogue”. The fragmentation of the organisational psyche (amongst and between all the folks in an organisation) can make “treating” the organisation, as a whole, somewhat, erm, problematic. Hence the value of techniques for large group dialogue.

Nonviolent communication (Rosenberg)

Marshall Rosenberg created Nonviolent Communication, to help people exchange the information necessary to resolve conflicts and differences peacefully. “Violent” communication can weaken relationships and increase divisions within organisations. Nonviolent communication can therefore help strengthen relationships and reduce divisions.

“NVC is based on the idea that all human beings have the capacity for compassion and only resort to violence or behavior that harms others when they don’t recognize more effective strategies for meeting needs.”
~ Wikipedia entry

Cognitive Biases

I find it helpful to share the knowledge of our human fallibilities (biases in judgement and decisions-making) with the folks in an organisation. Wikipedia has an extensive list of cognitive biases. Many folks are unaware of the many ways in which the human mind can systematically deviate from rationality or good judgement. And even with awareness, we can often still sucker ourselves into making poor judgements.

One key aspect of effective organisational therapy is the organisation getting to understand itself better. Knowledge of the mores of the human brain is but one aspect of this journey towards enlightenment.

Action Science (Chris Argyris)

Chris Argyris‘s concept of Action Science begins with the study of how people design their actions in difficult situations. Although not strictly part of Action Science – which itself is more of a field than a tool – I use various “tools” from Argyris from time to time, including Ladder of Inference and Left-hand Column.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger)

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. More specifically, the term refers to the sensation of unease or discomfort arising from such a state. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

The idea of organisational cognitive dissonance is the collective-psyche analog of individual cognitive dissonance. I posit that an organisation can collectively suffer a sense of discomfort or unease when finding itself having to hold two or more conflicting cognitions simultaneously. One classic example of this is when an Analytic organisation finds itself host to an outbreak of alien, synergistic thinking during an Agile adoption or Digital Transformation.

Organisational cognitive dissonance theory warns that organisations have a bias to seek consonance among their cognitions. Much of what goes on in the organisation can be regarded as “dissonance reduction”.

Coaching for Performance (Sir John Whitmore)

In his popular book “Coaching For Performance“, Sir John Whitmore (a co-founder of the Inner Game Ltd.) argues for the use of effective questions to raise awareness and (self) responsibility. And, in the context of business coaching, for “a fundamental shift in management style and culture”. Some of the key tools I have used from this corpus, over at least the past 25 years, include:

ARC (Awareness -> Responsibility -> Commitment)
GROW (Goals -> Reality -> Options -> Will) Coaching Model (ex- Graham Alexander and Alan Fine)
Team Development Model (with exercises)

Much of this has direct application to psychotherapy at the organisational level.

The Inner Game (Timothy Gallwey et al)

The “Inner Game”, developed by Tim Gallwey and friends, suggests that an individual makes accurate, non-judgmental observations of what they are doing, so that the person’s body will adjust and correct automatically to achieve best performance. A staple of e.g. sports coaching, I have adapted this basic principle to the organisational context. I posit that if an organisation uses accurate, non-judgmental observations of what it is actually doing, it will (to some extent) adjust and correct automatically to achieve best performance. This seems to me congruent with the “make it visible” vibe of e.g. personal kanban.

Theory of Constraints (Goldratt)

The Theory of Constraints is a philosophy developed by Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt, for application in organisations wishing to change for the better. Whilst not addressing issues of organisational health directly, Theory of Constraints provides a number of “Thinking tools” useful to the Organisational Therapist, including:

Evaporating Cloud – a means to finding a resolution to conflicting points of view.
Current Reality Tree – a focussing tool to help understand problematic situations
Future Reality Tree – a means to explore the impact of proposed solutions
Negative Branch Reservations – a complement to the Future Reality Tree
Pre-requisite Tree – a means to plan the implementation of solutions

Note that much of the Theory of Constraints is congruent with various aspects of positive psychology.

Systems Thinking (Ackoff)

When dealing with whole organisations, and the collective organisational psyche, it makes little to no sense to work on parts of the organisation in isolation. Professor Russell L Ackoff created both Reference Projection and Interactive Planning as means to tackle whole-system change coherently.

Group Dynamics (William McDougall et al)

Group dynamics refers to a system of behaviours and psychological processes occurring within a social group (intra-group dynamics), or between social groups (inter-group dynamics). Group dynamics are at the core of understanding a range of social prejudices and discriminations. The history of group dynamics has a consistent, underlying premise: ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’ In organisational psychotherapy, this is a very congruent premise. The term was invented by Kurt Lewin (to describe the positive and negative forces within groups of people).

William McDougall was an influential early twentieth-century psychologist who wrote in his 1920 book, “The Group Mind“:

“We can only understand the life of individuals and the life of societies, if we consider them always in relation to one another. . . each man is an individual only in an incomplete sense.”
~ William McDougall, The Group Mind, 1920 (p.6)

Systems Archetypes (Senge)

System Archetypes, as describe by Peter Senge in his seminal book “The Fifth Discipline“, help people understand the interconnections and interrelations between e.g. the various parts of their organisation. We might compare this to the way in which neuroscience helps us understand the interconnections and interrelations between e.g. the various parts of our brains. Such an understanding can help elaborate the context for organisational psychotherapy.

The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook has many useful exercises and techniques for the organisational therapist, particularly in workshop settings.

Lateral Thinking (Edward de Bono)

Edward de Bono‘s key idea in his work on lateral thinking is that effective creative thinking requires us to take conscious steps to transcend our natural, logical, linear and critical mode of thinking in favour of a mode which recognises how the brain works. Some of the tools he has created for this include:

Six Thinking Hats
Po (Provocative Operation)
Straatals
Septoes
DeBono Code Book

Managing Transitions (William Bridges, Kurt Lewin passim)

Managing Transitions is a book by William Bridges. In the book, he explore the psychology of change and presents an approach not unlike Kurt Lewin’s Unfreeze-Change-Freeze change model. The ideas in the book sit very comfortably with The Marshall Model’s idea of “Transition Zones”.

“The main strength of the [Bridges] model is that it focuses on transition, not change. The difference between these is subtle but important. Change is something that happens to people, even if they don’t agree with it. Transition, on the other hand, is internal: it’s what happens in people’s minds as they go through change. Change can happen very quickly, while transition usually occurs more slowly.”

Client-Centered Therapy (Carl Rogers)

Carl Rogers was amongst the founders of the humanistic approach to personal therapy, and known for the concept of unconditional positive regard – accepting a person without negative judgment of their basic worth. In this, his work has many similarities with that of his student, Marshall Rosenberg (Nonviolent Communication). I choose to apply much of Rogers’ approach in the context of Organisational Therapy. That is to say, practicing an unconditional positive regard for the organisation as a whole.

Rogers did much research into what makes therapy effective, and found just three necessary “Characteristics of a Helping Relationship”:

An unconditional, warm, positive regard for the client
Genuineness and “congruence” on the part of the therapist
Empathy and empathic understanding

Rogers expressed his Theory of Personality by way of Nineteen Propositions. Here are those Nineteen Propositions, but re-cast for the organisation:

All organisations (systems) exist in a continually changing world of experience (phenomenal field) of which they are the center.
The organisation reacts to the field as it is experienced and perceived. This perceptual field is “reality” for the organisation.
The organisation reacts as an organised whole to this phenomenal field.
A portion of the total perceptual field gradually becomes differentiated as the (organisational) “self”.
As a result of interaction with the environment, and particularly as a result of evaluational interaction within its “self”, the structure of the (organisational) self is formed – a coherent, fluid but consistent conceptual pattern of perceptions of characteristics and relationships of the “we” or the “us”, together with values attached to these concepts.
The organisation has one basic tendency and striving – to actualize, maintain and enhance the experiencing organisation.
The best vantage point for understanding behavior is from the internal frame of reference of the organisation-as-a-whole.
Behavior is basically the goal-directed attempt of the organisation-as-a-whole to satisfy its needs as experienced, in the field as perceived.
Emotion accompanies, and in general facilitates, such goal directed behavior, the kind of emotion being related to the perceived significance of the behavior for the maintenance and enhancement of the organisation (organisational homeostasis).
The values attached to experiences, and the values that are a part of the self-structure, in some instances, are values experienced directly by the organisation, and in some instances are values introjected or taken over from others (other organisations or sub-units or individuals within the organisation), but perceived in distorted fashion, as if they had been experienced directly.
As experiences occur in the life of the organisation, they are either, a) symbolized, perceived and organized into some relation to the (organisational) self, b) ignored because there is no perceived relationship to the self structure, c) denied symbolization or given distorted symbolization because the experience is inconsistent with the structure of the (organisational) self.
Most of the ways of behaving that are adopted by the organisation are those that are consistent with the concept of (organisational) self.
In some instances, behavior may be brought about by organic experiences and needs which have not been symbolized. Such behavior may be inconsistent with the structure of the (organisational) self but in such instances the behavior is not “owned” by the organisation.
Psychological adjustment exists when the concept of the (organisational) self is such that all the sensory and visceral experiences of the organism are, or may be, assimilated on a symbolic level into a consistent relationship with the concept of (organisational) self.
Psychological maladjustment (dysfunction) exists when the organisation denies awareness of significant sensory and visceral experiences, which consequently are not symbolized and organized into the gestalt of the (organisational) self-structure. When this situation exists, there is a basic or potential psychological tension (a.k.a. organisational cognitive dissonance).
Any experience which is inconsistent with the coherence of the structure of the (organisational) self may be perceived as a threat, and the more of these perceptions there are, the more rigidly the (organisational) self-structure is organized to maintain itself.
Under certain conditions, involving primarily complete absence of threat to the (organisational) self-structure, experiences which are inconsistent with it may be perceived and examined, and the structure of (organisational) self revised to assimilate and include such experiences.
When the organisation perceives and accepts into one consistent and integrated system all its sensory and visceral experiences, then it is necessarily more understanding of itself and its constituents (sub-units, individuals) and is more accepting of itself and its constituents and their respective, several needs.
As the organisation perceives and accepts into its (organisational) self-structure more of its organic experiences, it finds that it is replacing its present value system – based extensively on introjections which have been distortedly symbolized – with a continuing organismic valuing process.

Rogers believed that every person can achieve their goals, wishes and desires in life. When, or rather if they do so, self-actualisation takes place. I believe this applies to organisations too. Although rarely. Sigh.

Ram Dass

Ram Dass is the author of the “counterculture bible” Be Here Now, and “one of America’s most beloved spiritual figures”.

“It is important to expect nothing, to take every experience, including the negative ones, as merely steps on the path, and to proceed.”
~ Ram Dass

Integrative Therapy (Jeffrey Kottler)

Jeffrey Kottler reminds us that therapists are people too. In his work with Integrative Psychotherapy, he focuses on both integration (fusion) of different therapies, and on integrating the personality – making it cohesive and bringing together the “affective, cognitive, behavioral, and physiological systems within a person”.

I have embraced and adapted this approach to the organisation, believing that much of the dysfunction, stress and lack of effectiveness in knowledge-work organisations stems from a lack of coherence and integrity (here, in the sense of: the quality or condition of being united, whole or undivided; completeness.)

Transactional Analysis (Eric Berne)

Transactional Analysis (“TA”) is an integrative approach to the theory of (individual) psychology and psychotherapy. TA places an emphasis on curing the patient (relieving them of their neuroses or psychoses), rather than just understanding them (or having them understand themselves).

I find TA has significant applications in the context of organisational psychotherapy, for example the role the organisation too often plays as Parent in relation to its employees-as-Children. Note: The TA roles are reinforced from early an early age by our traditional systems of education.

General Semantics (Korzybski)

Count Alfred Korzybski founded the field of General Semantics, and in particular the premises of:

Non-Aristotelianism
Time Binding
Non-elementalism
Infinite-valued determinism

“We need not blind [and bind] ourselves with the old dogma that ‘human nature cannot be changed’, for we find that it can be changed.”
~ Alfred Korzybski

Drawn from his work with General Semantics, D David Bourland, Jr. created E-Prime to address the “structural problems” – as determined by Korzybski – of using various forms of the verb “to be”. I find E-Prime to be (sic) a useful addition to the Organisational Psychotherapist’s toolkit.

Action Research, Force Field Analysis (Kurt Lewin)

“Action research is a term which refers to a practical way of looking at your own work to check that it is as you would like it to be. Because action research is done by you, the practitioner, it is often referred to as practitioner based research; and because it involves you thinking about and reflecting on your work, it can also be called a form of self-reflective practice. The idea of self reflection is central. In traditional forms of research – empirical research – researchers do research on other people. In action research, researchers do research on themselves. Empirical researchers enquire into other people’s lives. Action researchers enquire into their own.”
~ McNiff, 2002

Kurt Lewin is known as one of the modern pioneers of social psychology, industrial and organisational psychology, and applied psychology, including Group Dynamics, Action Research and Organisational Development. He specified Lewin’s Equation for behaviour: B=ƒ(P,E).

Force field analysis provides a framework for looking at the factors (forces) that influence a situation

“In the late 1930s Kurt Lewin and his students conducted quasi-experimental tests in factory and neighbourhood settings to demonstrate, respectively, the greater gains in productivity and in law and order through democratic participation rather than autocratic coercion. Lewin not only showed that there was an effective alternative to Taylor’s ‘scientific management’ but through his action research provided the details of how to develop social relationships of groups and between groups to sustain communication and co-operation… Action research was the means of systematic enquiry for all participants in the quest for greater effectiveness through democratic participation.”
~ Clem Adelman

Chris Argyris acknowledges the roots of his “Action Science” (co-developed with Robert W. Putnam) in Lewin’s Action Research (and in the work of John Dewey).

Thinking Environments (Nancy Kline)

Nancy Kline, in her book “More Time to Think“, makes the case for creating a “Thinking Environment”, and identifies a number of “components” (with associated techniques) to help achieve this:

Attention
Equality
Ease
Appreciation
Encouragement
Feelings
Information
Diversity
Incisive Question
Place

Other Influences in my Practice

Patrick Lencioni (Trust, team-building)
Dan Pink (Intrinsic Motivation)
Morihei Ueshiba (Aikido philosophy, harmony)
Buddha (Zen)
Lao Tsu (Taoism)
Gandhi (Compassion, nonviolence, integrity)
Karl Marx, Georg Hegel (Alienation)
CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy)
REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy – Albert Ellis)
Mark Federman and the concept of Ba

– Bob

Individual vs Organisational Psychotherapy

November 6, 2012

Organisational Therapy, Psychology, Rightshifting

3 Comments

Individual vs Organisational Psychotherapy

My recent post on My Organisational Psychotherapy Toolkit turned out to be rather longer (more content) than expected. I had been meaning to include a paragraph or two on the challenges of adapting common therapy techniques – designed and tailored to the individual – for therapy related to the organisational psyche.

Organisational Psyche

Some folks have expressed skepticism about the very concept of an “organisational psyche”. I’d like to make a case for the validity of this concept, before getting on to the question of therapies tailored or adapted thereto.

Robert Kenney has written a extensive paper, laying out the scientific work on collective consciousness, although some may find his starting point somewhat “whacky”.

But I see the organisational psyche as slightly different from the more general idea of a “collective consciousness” – and not just a subset thereof. And quite different from, although informed by, e.g. Jung’s “collective unconscious“.

Group Mind, or Hive MInd a.k.a. collective intelligence is another concept with some connection to the idea of an organisational psyche.

Psyche

I prefer to start my attempt at a definition with the concept of “psyche“.

“In psychoanalysis and other forms of depth psychology, the psyche refers to the forces in an individual that influence thought, behaviour and personality.”
~ Wikipedia

Note:

“In recent decades cognitive psychology has replaced psychoanalysis as the dominant school of psychology in academic centres. Some cognitive scientists prefer the word ‘mind’ over ‘psyche’.”

Aside: I am not opposed to the term “organisational mind” as an alternative to “organisational psyche”. Some folks choose to make a distinction between the two.

So, building on the above Wikipedia quote, I see organisational psyche thusly:

“Organisational psyche refers to the forces in an organisation that influence thought, behaviour and personality of the organisation as a whole.”

This invites some further comment:

First, what about the influence of the organisational psyche on the thoughts, behaviours and personalities of the components (sub-units and individuals) within the overall organisation? Such influence undoubtedly exists, and in reverse, too. But I choose to regard, for the purposes of organisational therapy at least, the thoughts, behaviours and personalities of the components as being distinct from the collective organisational psyche. I recognise the dilemma this “separation” raises. Perhaps one day I’ll get to a place where the dilemma dissolves. Until that day, I’ll live with it. And the way my head hurts when I think about it too much.

Second, what do we mean by “organisation”?

Organisation

Such an everyday term. So easy to take it for granted. Here’s a short description in line with how I see the term in the context of organisational psychotherapy:

“An organisation is a social entity that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment.”
~ Wikipedia

Interestingly, the word “organisation” derives from the Greek for “organ”. I like the idea that organisations are “organs” of our social body (society). I do not subscribe to the (common?) view that the “collective goal” of the typical organisation is simply to make money. I prefer Goldratt’s take on the question (c.f. “necessary conditions”).

Therapy

So now to the question of therapy. If we accept – or choose to believe – that there is such a thing as an organisational psyche, then psychotherapy seems like it might be a reasonable term for the activity of working with – or “treating” – it.

psy·cho·ther·a·py /ˌsīkōˈTHerəpē/
The treatment of mental or psychological disorders by psychological means.

Note that the root of the word psychotherapy means “healing the spirit”. What better term then for the work of healing the spirit – or soul – of our organisations?

“Psychotherapy – in the field – is almost always concerned with improvement in the general functioning of patients.”
~ Martin Seligman

Adaptation

There are literally hundreds of different kinds of therapies used to treat individuals and their psyches. Many of these therapies have much research into their efficacy, some into their effectiveness, and some into the reasons why they work. Rather than invent new modalities of therapy specifically for organisations and the organisational psyche, I feel it makes more sense to adapt existing modalities of therapy to the organisational context.

As an example of such adaptation, consider Solution Focus. Solution Focus in its common form is about working with individuals, helping individuals (who may, incidentally, be members of a group) “identify the things that they wish to have changed in their life and also to attend to those things that are currently happening that they wish to continue to have happen.”

It’s not much of a stretch to see how tools/techniques from Solution Focus – such as the “Miracle Question” – can be repurposed to the organisation as a whole. Of course, asking a question of a whole organisation (or as a minimum, the components at the centre of consciousness thereof) is somewhat different than asking that same question of an individual. In fact, this is the reason I favour techniques for improving group dialogue skills.

– Bob

The Organisational Therapist’s Experience

November 9, 2012

Coaching, Organisational Therapy, Psychology

2 Comments

The Organisational Therapist’s Experience

Carl Rogers wrote some inspiring, insightful, beautiful prose describing the experience of individual therapy, from the perspectives of both the therapist and the client. I have here re-cast his description of the Therapist’s Experience to describe my own feelings when working with an organisation – as its organisational therapist.

The Therapist

To the therapist, this is a new venture, an new instance of relating. The therapist feels:

“Here is this other organism. I’m a little afraid of it, afraid of the depths in it as I am a little afraid of the depths in myself.

“Yet as we meet, I begin to feel a respect for it, to feel my kinship to it. I sense how blind it is to itself and its ‘feelings’, and how frightening its world is for it, how tightly it tries to gain some understanding of itself and its place. To hold onto its sense of self.

“I would like to sense this organisation’s ‘feelings’, and I would like it to know that I understand its feelings. I would like it to know that I stand with it in its tight, constricted little world, and that I can look upon its world relatively unafraid. Perhaps we can together make it seems a safer world, in time.

“I would like my feelings in this relationship, with this organisation, to be as clear and transparent as possible, so that they are a discernible reality for everyone who is part of the organisation. A discernible reality to which they – and the organisation as a whole – can return again and again. I look forward to the experience of travelling together with the organisation on its fearful journey into itself, into the buried fear, and angst, and doubt, and love which it has never been able to embrace and explore by itself.

“I recognise that this is a very human and unpredictable journey for me, as well as for them, and that I may, without even knowing my fear, shrink away within myself, from some of the feelings it discovers. To this extent I know I will be limited in my ability to help them.

“I realise that at times its own fears may make the organisation perceive me as uncaring, as rejecting, as an intruder, as one who does not understand. I want fully to accept these feelings, and yet I hope also that my own real feelings will show through so clearly that in time the organisation cannot fail to perceive them.

“Most of all I want it to encounter in me a real person. I do not need to be uneasy as to whether my own feelings are ‘therapeutic’. What I am and what I feel are good enough to be a basis for therapy, if I can transparently be what I am and what I feel in relationship to them. Then perhaps the organisation can be what it is, openly and without fear.”

You might like to see also my next post, for the organisation’s (client’s) perspective on the therapy experience.

– Bob

The Organisation’s Therapy Experience

November 9, 2012

Coaching, Organisational Therapy, Psychology

3 Comments

The Organisation’s Therapy Experience

Paired with my previous post, this post reframes Carl Rogers‘ look at the client’s experience of therapy, from the perspective of the organisation-as-client.

Note: I find it more natural to use the pronouns “we/us/ourself” to indicate the organisation – its collective consciousness – here, rather than e.g. “I/me/myself”. Even though I do not intend “we/us/ourself”, in this context, to indicate the individuals inside the organisation.

The Client

The client (i.e. the organisation as a whole), for its part, goes through far more complex sequences – which we can only make suggestions about. Perhaps the organisation’s “feelings” change over time in some of these ways:

“We’re afraid of the therapist. We want help, but we don’t know whether to trust him. He might see things which we don’t know in ourself – frightening and bad things. He says he’s not judging us, but we’re convinced he is. We can’t tell him what really concerns us – but we can tell him about some past experiences which are related to our concerns. He seems to understand those, so we can reveal a bit more of ourself.

“But now that we’ve shared with him some of this bad side of us, he despises us. We are convinced of it, but it’s strange we can find little evidence of it. Do you suppose that what we’ve told him isn’t so bad? Is it possible that we need not be ashamed of it as a part of ourself? We no longer feel that he despises us. It makes us feel that we want to go further, exploring ourself, perhaps expressing more of ourself. We find him a sort of companion as we do this – he seems really to understand.

“But now we’re getting frightened again, and this time deeply frightened. We didn’t realise that exploring the unknown recesses of ourself would make us feel feelings we’ve never experienced before. It’s very strange because in one way these aren’t new feelings. We sense that they’ve always been there. But they seem so bad and disturbing we’ve never dared to let them flow in us consciously. And now as we live these feelings in the hours with him, we feel terribly shaky, as though our world is falling apart. It used to be sure and firm. Now it is loose, permeable and vulnerable. It isn’t pleasant to feel things we’ve always been frightened to face before. It’s his fault. Yet curiously we’re eager to see him and we feel more safe when we’re working with him.

“We don’t know who we are any more, but sometimes when we feel things, we seem solid and real for a moment. We’re troubled by the contradictions we find in ourself – we act one way and feel another – we think one thing and feel another. Some of us are not on the same page, contrary to how we thought we all were. It is very disconcerting. It’s also sometimes adventurous and exhilarating to be trying to discover who we are, together. Sometimes we catch ourself feeling that perhaps the organism we are is worth being a part of, and worth being – whatever that means.

“We are beginning to find it very satisfying, though often painful, to share just what it is we’re feeling at this moment. You know, it’s really helpful to try to listen to ourself, to hear what is going on in our collective consciousness. We’re not so frightened any more of what is going on in ourself. It seems pretty trustworthy. We use some of our hours with him to dig deep into ourself to know what we are feeling. It’s scary work, but we want to know. And we do trust him most of the time, and that helps. We feel pretty vulnerable and raw, but we know he doesn’t want to hurt us, and we even believe he cares. It occurs to us as we try to let ourself down and down, deep into ourself, that maybe if we could sense what is going on in us, and could realise its meaning, we would know who we are, and we would also know what to do. At least we feel this sense of knowing sometimes, with him.

“We can even tell him just how we’re feeling toward him at any given moment and instead of this killing the relationship, as we used to fear, it seems to deepen it. Do you suppose that could be so with our feelings about other people and entities, too? Perhaps that wouldn’t be too dangerous either.

“You know, we feel as if we’re floating along on the current of life, very adventurously, being our authentic self. We get defeated sometimes, we get hurt sometimes, but we’re learning that those experiences are not fatal. We don’t know exactly who we are, but we can feel our reactions at any given moment, and they seem to work out pretty well as a basis for our behavior from moment to moment. Maybe this is what it means to be our authentic self. But of course we can only do this because we feel safe in the relationship with ourself and our therapist. Or could we be ourself this way outside of this therapy relationship? We wonder. We wonder. Perhaps we could. One day.”

– Bob

Seven Reasons Why Every Business Needs a Therapist

November 15, 2012

Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Psychology, Rightshifting

3 Comments

Seven Reasons Why Every Business Needs a Therapist

It’s probably fair to say that few – other than regular readers of my blog – have ever heard of the term “Organisational Psychotherapy“. And of those who have heard it, there may be many who assume they already know well enough what it means.

This post describes the benefits offered by “organisational therapy”, and invites you to consider to what extent other approaches – such as consulting or coaching – might cover the same ground.

Purpose

The purpose of the organisational therapist is to improve the well-being of an organisation. As Martin Seligman observes:

“An absence of poor health is not the same as good health.”
~ Prof. Martin Seligman

The proponents of positive psychology say that poor health and good health are not just opposite ends of a spectrum – they are two independent spectra. And although many organisations are undoubtedly in very poor health from a psychological point of view, I believe therapy delivers the greatest benefits when it focuses on improving good health.

Following the idea of Obliquity, popularised by John Kay, the Organisational Therapist is not concerned with the effectiveness of the organisation per se, nor productivity nor bottom-line results. Rather, these desirables follow obliquely as a natural consequence of the increased good health and well-being of the organisation as a whole. Lencioni’s recent book “The Advantage” explores this connection in depth.

Benefits of Therapy

Increased Positive Emotion
Increasing the positive emotion in an organisation brings higher levels of peace, gratitude, satisfaction, pleasure, inspiration, hope, curiosity and love. One of the most common issues for people working in commercial organisations is the lack of “soul” and “humanity”. Many organisations today see emotion as something to be suppressed or avoided – as somehow “unprofessional” and “inappropriate”.
“Research shows us that conscious attempts to suppress or avoid thoughts, feelings, or memories will actually increase their intensity. So if you try to suppress an emotion, memory, or thought that you don’t like, it will just come back to you in spades. It’s another paradox: You can’t control which feelings, thoughts, memories, or sensations show up in the first place, but you can make them much worse by trying to suppress them.”
~ Kirk Stroshal and Patricia Robinson
Organisations that take a more progressive view of positive emotion and its role in the workplace offer a more enjoyable experience for everyone. Life can be less stressful, and work can have more “meaning”. People can embrace their humanity and their engagement with their work. Retaining existing staff and attracting new talent both become easier as the organisation becomes a more attractive place for talent to work. A focus on improving positive emotion can also lead to higher EQ, a key element in handling ongoing change.
Connection with a Higher Purpose
Living a meaningful life is, in essence, related to attaching oneself to something larger than oneself. Many organisations provide their people with little in the way of a meaningful higher purpose, or ways to connect with it. A shared sense of purpose brings alignment of people, a compelling vision, and general sense of direction and well-being. All these positive attributes in turn contribute to a healthier and more productive business.
Engagement
Achieving a state of flowor total engagement is quite natural, especially when people are involved in activities they love. And although natural, it’s sadly all to often absent from peoples’ working lives. It’s hard enough to create the conditions for “flow” that many organisations leave it to chance, or ignore it entirely. And then there’s the wider question of folks’ general “engagement” in and commitment to their work. We all know about the epidemic that is the lack of engagement in work. When an organisation attends to engagement (both in the sense of flow, and in the broader sense) people accomplish much more, and feel much happier, too.
Positive Relationships
For many, work is central to their lives because of the relationships they form and share. Man is a social animal, and work provides an almost universal opportunity for “being social”. All too often though, organisations create situations where relationships degenerate into negativity and alienation. A healthy organisation provides for positive relationships, friendships and fellowship, and reducing unhelpful conflict, stress, and anxiety. This scope for positive relations also extends to customers and clients, helping the business do more business.
Accomplishment
Accomplishment helps to build self-esteem and provides a sense of achievement. It also strengthens self-belief. Rightshifting illustrates how under-achieving are most organisations today. There is a virtuous circle of accomplishment and self-belief which can shift organisations to incredible levels of performance. Not only do most organisations fail to realise anything like their potential, this under-achievement means most or all of their people are wasting a great deal of their innate potential, too.
Culture Management
“The thing I have learned at IBM is that culture is everything.”
~ Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., former IBM CEO
“Culture eats strategy for breakfast.”
~ Peter Drucker via Mark Fields, President, Ford Motor Co
More and more business leaders recognise the fundamental roie of culture – or, more accurately, mindset – in the success of their organisations. But how to effect a culture-change? Few have any experience in this, nor many tools to help. This one thing, beyond all the other benefits of therapy, stands out.
Life Skills for the Individuals
With all this talk about the benefits of therapy for the organisation as a whole, let’s not overlook the benefits of working to achieve improved organisational health for the folks involved. Being involved with therapy, learning and seeing how it works, offers folks a way to acquire and enhance their own life skills, appropriate to all aspects of their lives.

Summary

Can we leave a change of thinking to chance? Hope fondly that it will just happen? Expect it to take place as a byproduct of other actions? Appoint a “thought czar” or some other single wringable neck?

No.

“If we want to change what we have been getting, then we will have to change what we have been thinking. Otherwise, nothing will change.”

If we want to see a collective change of thinking in our organisations, therapy offers an effective means to making that happen. Every business, every organisation, needs a therapist.

– Bob

The Next Revolution

December 1, 2012

Agile, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Prognostication, Psychology, Rightshifting

6 Comments

The Next Revolution

I’m not given to pontificating on the future, but I do like to keep an eye on trends and the bigger (emerging) picture. Not least because I enjoy learning about new ideas, and so as to be ready to take things – such as effectiveness – to the next level, as the world allows.

In the unlikely event you’ve not noticed, I’ll just remind you that my focus over the past year has been on things psychological, and in particular, Organisational Psychotherapy. I’m sure a whole passel of folks think this quite strange for someone who has been up to his eyeballs in technology for over thirty years.

“A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.”
~ Wayne Gretzky

I’ve become increasingly convinced over the past several years that the “puck” is going to be in the psychology half of the rink in the future. Actually, I don’t think it’s ever really been elsewhere – but folks are going to begin paying real attention to all aspects of psychology sometime soon.

Just this week Rory Sutherland (“the fat bloke at Ogilvy”) has been speaking at TEDxAmsterdam about how

“The next revolution will be psychological, not technological”.
~ Rory Sutherland, Ogilvy

I find myself in complete agreement with his general premise, as explained in his video from TED Athens recorded late last year (circa: 09:23, in particular).

This slide from his talk illustrates his point about the value of looking at all three of Technology, Economics AND Psychology – the “sweet spot” where all three intersect – in making business decisions.

“Google is as much psychological success as it is a technological one.”
~ Rory Sutherland

Many in the software field focus on technology – still, although less so these days. Some, particular those with a Product Development bent (cf “The Don” Reinertsen) on economics. And some, like coaches, on aspects of psychology. I feel we’re overdue in taking the latter seriously.

How Soon?

So just how soon is all this likely to happen? How long will it be before things psychological begin to noticeably impact business, politics, and society too?

I’ll hazard a guess and say In my lifetime. Before I retire, even. Although I’m not confident in making a prediction much more specific than that.

As the novelist William GIbson – a much more renowned futurologist – famously said:

“The future is already here — it’s just not very evenly distributed.”
~ WIlliam Gibson, in “The Science in Science Fiction”
on Talk of the Nation, NPR

Implications for Business

Think of the pervasive influence technology – under the label “IT” – has had on the structures of businesses everywhere.

Think of the IT department for example…, the IT helpdesk…, or the CIO and CTO roles.

Will we see a “Psych” department emerge, with a “Psych helpdesk” offering real-time advice on psychology issues across the business? Will we see a “Head of Psych” or a “Chief Psych Officer”? Will a “Psych department” undertake “psych” projects to deliver psychological improvements and psychological “infrastructure” into the wider organisation?

Maybe, during the transition. But the lamentable – from a psychological perspective, not least – dysfunctions inherent in these ideas will become apparent soon enough.

I’m sure you can make some extrapolations and predications based on this scenario, too.

Organisational Psychology

Group Dynamics and group psychology has been around as a field of psychology since at least the 1890s. Although (individual) psychology and its close cousin neuroscience will be applied more and more to e.g. marketing, I believe it’s organisational psychology in all its forms and applications that has most to offer business, and society as a whole.

Let’s not forget though, that the concept of an organisational psyche is just a model of reality, and although useful, somewhat “wrong” (cf. George Box).

To paraphrase Ludwig von Mises:

“It is an enormous simplification to speak of the organisational mind. Every employee in an organisation has their own mind.”

Are You Ready?

Are you ready for the coming shift from technology to psychology? What are you doing to get ready? Is it even a shift you want to be a part of?

I know some folks who live and breathe to work with tech. Working with people from a psychological perspective seems like it might be a nightmare for some.

Even for coaches, and other folks whose roles already involve working with people and their psyches more than technology, it’s going to be a major shift of focus.

Not all at once, of course. But over time, seismic.

The Ties that Bind

December 9, 2012

Agile, Coaching, Ethics, Organisational Therapy, Psychology

4 Comments

The Ties that Bind

Recently, I’ve been studying and practicing Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication, along with the ideas of his mentor, Carl Rogers – the founder of the client-centered therapy movement. At the heart of both methods (and many other modern humanistic psychotherapies besides) is Rogers’ idea of Unconditional Positive Regard (UPR).

The idea seems simple, but I find the practise of it extremely challenging – even though the idea is quite congruent with my long-standing Theory Y disposition towards people.

This post explores the concept of UPR, and its relationship with a particular bind I have, and which I see many other folks, especially coaches, struggling with too.

The Bind

The “bind” (for many, a double bind) in question revolves around wanting to change things. In particular, the wish to change things that depend on people (other people) changing e.g. their behaviours, attitudes, assumptions or mindset.

Let’s use an example to help illustrate this general nature of this bind – animal cruelty.

When I see reports of animals, such as cats, dogs or horses, suffering through neglect, starvation, isolation, and other such travails, it makes me sad. It contradicts my need for seeing compassionate treatment for all living things. I realise this as an attachment to a moral or sentimental position, and as the Buddha said:

“Attachment leads to suffering.”
~ Siddhārtha Gautama

So in this example I feel I have at least two options:

Change myself – become more equanimous – so that I might be feel less troubled by, in this case, the actions of others as they affect “innocent” animals.
Change others – i.e. feckless owners – so that fewer animals might suffer from uncaring or otherwise intentionally or unintentionally harsh treatment.

My bind arises because I don’t much like either option. I’m not averse to changing myself, in principle, but abandoning poor defenceless animals forevermore to the whimsy of brutes seems unappealing. Yet the thought of approaching others from a position of wanting them to change, even maybe coercing them to change, however much kindness and Unconditional Positive Regard I might feign, seems at least as unappealing.

UPR – A Definition

Carl Rogers describes Unconditional Positive Regard as “a quality of a therapist’s experience towards their client”.

Unconditional
Someone experiencing UPR holds ‘no conditions of acceptance… It is at the opposite pole from a selective, evaluating attitude.’
Positive
One offers ‘warm acceptance . . . a “prizing” of the person, as Dewey has used that term…It means a caring for the client…’
Regard
One regards ‘each aspect of the client’s experience as being part of that client… It means a caring for the client, but not in a possessive way or in such a way as simply to satisfy the therapist’s own needs. It means caring for the client as a separate person, with permission to have their own feelings, their own experiences.’

Rogers noted that far from being a black-and-while, all-or-nothing experience for the therapist, UPR probably occurs sometimes (‘at many moments’) and not at other times, and to varying degrees.

Rogers theorised that the therapist’s modelling of UPR allows the client to build-up or restore their own positive self-regard.

The Bind in Mind

Moving on then from a general example of the kind of bind I have in mind, we come to my specific case, in the world of organisations. Organisations are of course made up of people. And some of those people sometimes, for their own reasons, can do things which make other folks’ lives less rich and less worth the living.

So, as in the more general example, I see “change agents”, myself included, as having at least two options:

Change myself – become more equanimous – so that I might be feel less troubled by, in this case, the actions of others as they affect their employees and co-workers. After all, I have in some sense chosen to care about this issue.
Change others – i.e. feckless managers, etc. – so that fewer folks might suffer from uncaring or otherwise intentionally or unintentionally harsh treatment.

I find option one highly unpalatable, yet I find option two reeking of judgementalism and contrary to the idea of Unconditional Positive Regard.

I’m sure I’m not the only one struggling with this question. I’m not sure even the Buddha had a good answer. Excepting perhaps:

“Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.”
~ The Buddha

And although I have no clear answer as to the better (less worse) option, I have at least made peace with myself – and the question. The idea of Unconditional Positive Regard has helped me greatly in finding a nonviolent way forward.

So, I have chosen the path of the humanistic therapist, making myself available to those who have some wish to change themselves, but maybe feel that they need some help in tackling that, someone to walk with them on their journey.

Or more accurately, I have chosen the path of the humanistic organisational therapist, making myself available to those organisations who have some wish to change themselves, but maybe feel that they need some help in tackling that, some companion to walk with them, for a while, on their journey of improving self-regard and well-being.

in other words, and to paraphrase Gandhi:

“We can choose to model the changes we need to see in the world.”

How about you?

Do you struggle with the question of which is the best option?

Do you just let folks get on with their lives? Keep you head down and turn a blind eye to their potential sufferings? Choose to let them – or fate – sort things out?

Or do you try to help, try to get involved when e.g. injustice, ignorance, egregious self-interest or other circumstances cause folks worry, suffering and pain?

And where, if anywhere, does Unconditional Positive Regard come into that, for you?

– Bob

Damning with Fulsome Praise

December 10, 2012

Coaching, Dialogue, Ethics, Leadership, Organisational Therapy, Psychology

3 Comments

Damning with Fulsome Praise

Many folks write about how Positive Reinforcement is a Good Thing. Some folks use the grander (yet, smellier?) term “Appreciative Performance Remediation“.

Yet Rosenberg said

“In Nonviolent Communication, we consider praise and compliments a violent form of communication.“

I’m so much with Rosenberg on this one. Here’s a longer extract, with Rosenberg explaining the issue, from the Nonviolent Communication perspective, in some more depth:

“In NVC, we consider praise and compliments a violent form of communication. Because they are part of the language of domination, it is one passing judgment on another. What makes it more complex is that people are trained to use praise as reward, as a manipulation to get people to do what they want. For example, parents I work with, teachers, managers in industry have been trained in courses and by other people to use praise and compliments as rewards. In a family, we are taught that if you praise and compliment children daily, they are more likely to do what you want. Teachers do the same in school to get children to work more. And managers in industry are trained to do this, showing them how to use praise and compliments as rewards. To me, this is a violent form of communication because it is using language as a manipulation that destroys the beauty of sincere gratitude. So in NVC we show people to make sure that before you open your mouth to get clear that the purpose is not to manipulate a person by rewarding them. Your only purpose is to celebrate. To celebrate the life that has been enriched by what the other person has contributed to you. Then, once conscious to make clear three things in this celebration; first, what the person did that enriched your life, not a generality, like ‘your so kind, beautiful, or wonderful’ but what concretely did they do for you. Second, how do you feel inside about their action? And third, what need of yours was fulfilled inside you by their contribution?

“I had just finished saying this to a group of teachers, telling them about the dangers of using praise and complements as rewards. I showed them how to do it this other way and I must not have done a good job of explaining this because afterward, a woman came up and said, ‘You were brilliant.’ I said, ‘That is no help. I have been called a lot of names in my life some positive and some far from positive and I could never recall learning anything of value from someone telling me what I am. I don’t think anybody does but I can see by the look in your eyes you want to express gratitude.’ She said, ‘yes’ and I said, ‘I want to receive it [the gratitude] but telling me what I am doesn’t help.’ She said, ‘What do you want to hear?’ ‘What did I say in the workshop that made life more wonderful for you?’ She said, ‘You are so intelligent.’ I said, ‘That doesn’t help.’ She thought for a moment and then opened her notebook and said, ‘Here these two things that you said really made a difference.’ I said, ‘How do you feel?’ She said, ‘Hopeful and relieved.’ I said, ‘It would help me if I knew what needs of your were met.’ She said, ‘I have this 18 year old son and when we fight, it is horrible. It can go on for days. I have been needing some concrete direction and these two things have made such a difference for me.’

“When I give this example, people can see the difference between praise and gratitude and how different in value both are. In the case of celebration, you can trust it is being done with no manipulation so that you will keep doing it or say something nice about them. Instead, it is really coming from the heart. It is a sincere celebration of the exchange between two people.”

Application to Organisations

This same perspective – that praise and compliments are a violent form of communication – applies at least as much to groups as it does to individuals. And, ultimately, to organisations in toto.

Are you motivated to praise or compliment your teams? Where did you learn that? Do you have any evidence for its efficacy? How likely is it that praise is actually causing more harm than good? How would you know?

Oh yes, praise or compliments may be better than harsh words, criticism, and punishment. But how likely is it that there might be a better way?

Personally, I can imagine some folks subconsciously resenting the attempt at manipulation implicit in receiving praise or compliments.

Might it not be more likely to see folks’ needs met by taking the path of Nonviolent Communication?:

Say what you saw, or heard (a simple evaluation-free statement)
Say what you felt (it can help, initially, to pick from a list)
“I feel…”
Say what you need (again here’s a handy list)
“…because I need/value…”
Make a request (the concrete actions you would like)
“Would you be willing to…?”

Beware Eumemics

December 31, 2012

Agile, Coaching, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Psychology

7 Comments

Beware Eumemics

Have you ever wished folks would see things more like the way you do? Of course you have. I know I have. Rosenberg might say this wish is a tragic expression of an unmet need.

In my case, most often it’s related to my need for meaningful connection. I find it that much more difficult to have meaningful connections when I’m not “on the same page” as someone else. And sometimes it’s related to my need for social justice, and seeing people realising more of their innate potential (both of which, most likely, signify deeper unmet needs).

Maybe other folks, when they experience people seeing things differently, also feel some kind of discomfort. Discomfort related to their own particular unmet needs.

I see this discomfort manifest often in the world of Agile adoptions. Where folks who “get” Agile, (or think they do) express their frustration with others who don’t “get it”. The most common form of such expression being something like:

“I wish they could just see things the way I do. We could all be so much more productive / happy / etc. if that were so.”

The Standard Response

We typically try to help others “get onto our page”, through e.g. discussion, argument, persuasion, influencing, “thought leadership” and what have you. Organisations – and society generally – seems tolerant even of coercion and compulsion as means to this end.

“Be reasonable… see things my way.”
~ Anonymous

But whence our arrogance to believe that our way of seeing the world it the “right” way? Or that there is ever even one “right way” of seeing?

“There are no facts, only interpretations.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche

We could just attribute this need – to have other folks see things our way – to human nature, and move on. Or we could take a closer look, and explore some of the implications.

“It is a narrow mind which cannot look at a subject from various points of view.”
~ George Eliot

I’m not, in this post, going to look at all the implications of influencing, cajoling or coercing others to see things our way. I’m interested today in the question of eumemics.

“Our society tends to regard as a sickness any mode of thought or behaviour that is inconvenient for the system – and this is plausible because when an individual doesn’t fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a cure for a sickness and therefore as good.”
~ Theodore Kaczynski

What’s “eumemics”? The word derives from “eugenics” and “meme“.

Eugenics: the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

Eumemics: the science(?) of improving a population by controlled alteration of prevailing memes to increase the occurrence of desirable behaviours, assumptions and other such belief-oriented characteristics.

Both of which definitions beg the question: desirable to whom?

We see every day folks who wish that others would see the world their way.

I’m not questioning these folks’ good intentions. Before the 1940s, few questioned the good intentions of the eugenicists. But eugenics now has few supporters.

And I certainly believe that Mankind could benefit from thinking differently.

No, I’m bothered by the implication of the seemingly widespread attitude we might label as “eumemics”.

“The 20th century suffered TWO ideologies that led to genocides. [One was Nazism.] The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn’t believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it’s not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It’s the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics [or eumemics] or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.”
~ Steven Pinker

You might like to read the article “Memetic mesmerism and Eumemics” for some more context, and food for thought.

Respect for People

Eumemics seems, to me, fundamentally at odds with the idea of respect for people. Client-centered Therapy, for example, holds that people have all they need within themselves (including, by implication, their own way of seeing things) to find their own answers.

Hence the title of this post. Expanded, this could read:

“Would you like to be on the look out for the tendency to try to direct others towards your own way of seeing things? How do you feel about being alert to the consequences – potentially both negative and positive – of such a tendency?”

I’d be delighted to hear your responses to these questions.

Afterword

It struck me while working on the idea for this post that maybe some folks might interpret the title of this blog – “Think Different” – as some kind of exhortation or attempt to influence. Personally, I see it as rather more of an invitation: “Would you like to consider the implications of thinking differently?”.

– Bob

Nonviolent Change

January 10, 2013

Agile, Coaching, Ethics, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Product development, Psychology, Rightshifting, Software development

11 Comments

Nonviolent Change

Change initiatives, and their generally bigger cousins “change programmes”, almost always involve fear, obligation, guilt and shame. And start from a position of coercive violence.

Here’s a typical posture I’ve seen time and again in the context of organisational change both large and small:

“The company needs to make some changes to become more profitable. We judge you, you and you to be of the right stuff for this assignment. You will work on this change effort. Here’s a list of the changes we want to see. And here’s how we insist you should go about these changes. Do things our way and you’ll be ‘right’. Anything else and you’ll be ‘wrong’. If things go well you can hope for some minor level of gratitude and/or recognition. But woe betide things going badly (veiled threats or implicit allusions to the effect that you could be punished or fired in such circumstances). Actually, however things turn out, we’ll classify you all into various shades of right or wrong. Oh, and we also insist that you feel obliged to look happy and motivated whilst doing this.”

Do you see the violence inherent in this system? Walter Wink would describe this as a “Domination System”. Marshall Rosenberg might call it a “Jackal culture”:

“In Jackal culture, feelings and wants are severely punished. People are expected to be docile, subservient to authority; slave-like in their reactions, and alienated from their feelings and needs.
“In Jackal, we expect other people to prove their loyalty to us by doing what we want.”
~ Marshall Rosenberg

What’s Wrong With this Picture?

This posture inevitably provokes defensiveness, resistance, and counterattack. We often call this a “passive aggressive” response. Although outright aggression is possible, too. This posture impacts the morale and (initial) goodwill of the people chosen. It robs involvement and motivation, and induces a state of fear, insecurity and learned helplessness. Ultimately, it’s a key contributing factor to increasing the poor health of the organisation.

Yet it’s so much the norm that it’s beyond most folks’ imagination to even notice that there could be an alternative. Let’s take a look at just one viable alternative:

The Nonviolent Posture

“I guess you share some of our concerns about the future of the company. We have noticed X and Y and Z as signs that the company needs to make some changes to become more profitable. How do you feel about this? We feel concerned enough that we’d like to see a group come together to work on this. Who shares our view on this need (to become more profitable)? What need (purpose) would best align with your needs? What would you each need (request) to sign up to this group? If things go well we can all hope for things to be mutually more wonderful. If things don’t go so well, we’ll all see what we can do about it, at the appropriate time. Actually, however things turn out, are you willing to share in our choice to believe that everyone was doing their best?”

“How could this possibly work?”
“Isn’t this lunatic optimism run riot?”

These are questions which often follow as a common response to nonviolence in general, yet time and again nonviolent means have wrought unlikely (positive and beneficial) outcomes.

Aside: Note the general NVC framework in this posture: Empathy, observations, feelings, needs, requests.

In such a scenario as here described, a genuine posture of nonviolence offers the opportunity for everyone to have their needs met. And when folks have their needs met, they’re likely to feel engaged, hopeful, confident, excited and inspired, to name but a few of the positive emotions.

Of course, it’s a matter of personal belief as to whether such emotions are appropriate, and beneficial, in e.g. a business setting.

What do you believe? Which posture do you see as have more benefit? As having more chance of success? As more humane?

And under which posture would you flourish more? Which would best meet your needs?

Afterword

I chose to characterise both of the above postures in the context of an Analytic-minded organisation. This was both to make the idea more accessible to folks with that worldview, and to illustrate that even in such organisations, it doesn’t require a wholesale shift in the organisational mindset to begin using Nonviolent Communication in e.g. change initiatives.

Just for the record though, here’s the second posture recast in the context of a Synergistic-minded organisation:

“I guess we all share some concerns about the future of our company. Some folks have mentioned X and Y and Z as signs that we need to make some changes. Changes that might incidentally also help improve e.g. profitability. How do we all feel about this? I feel concerned enough to ask whether we’d like to see a group come together specifically to work on this. Who shares our view on this need (to do something, now)? What need (purpose) would best align with each of our own needs at the moment? What would folks each need (request) to sign up to this group? If things go well we can all hope for things to be mutually more wonderful. If things don’t go so well, we’ll all see what we can do about it, at the appropriate time. Maybe it’s not necessary to remind ourselves that actually, however things turn out, we choose to believe that everyone was doing their best?”

And, in a Chaordic-minded organisation, it’s highly unlikely that this conversation would ever even be necessary, as the need for change, the enrolment of people, and the whole nine yards, would be an integral part of daily business-as-usual.

– Bob

Introducing Rightshifting

February 7, 2013

Ethics, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Rightshifting

1 Comment

Introducing Rightshifting

I recently saw a tweet which read:

“Change is about the interaction of competing narratives, whilst change management aims to impose a dominant narrative on others.”
~ @aptviator

When I saw this I thought “Nooooooo”. Not imposition! I hope I don’t do that. Or rather, I hope people don’t perceive my presentations on the subject of Rightshifting and the Marshall Model as an imposition, or an exercise of dominance. Especially after writing much about nonviolence and nonviolent change.

But then I thought about it a bit more. And saw that maybe the tweet in question has some valuable insights to offer.

Looking back, I can certainly recall management consultants and change agents attempting to impose a dominant narrative on others – and in particular on their client and that client’s people. Generally (with complicity by management) in a coercive and violent fashion.

And I can definitely agreed with the first half of the tweet – that change is about the interaction of competing narratives – and moreover the memes and memeplexes underlying those narratives. With the Core Group’s narrative and memeplex generally winning out – however dysfunctional it might be.

I feel uneasy because I need to believe that folks have the freedom to both construct and to follow their own narratives.

“I’m interested in learning that’s motivated by reverence for life, that’s motivated by a desire to learn skills, to learn new things that help us to better contribute to our own well-being and the well-being of others. And what fills me with great sadness is any learning that I see motivated by coercion.”
~ Marshall Rosenberg

I’ve been making quite a few Rightshifting presentations to groups of people recently, and I’d hate to think I’d been inadvertently giving folks the impression that Rightshifting was the new party line. My position of relative influence – at least, as possibly perceived by my audiences – also compounds the risk that some folks may have thought they had and have little option other than to comply or agree.

So, for any of those folks that may be reading this, and as a reminder to myself to make things more conspicuous in future, here’s the kind of introduction that might make my intent clearer:

“Today I’m going to explain Rightshifting, and the Marshall Model. I find these ideas useful to help explain and understand what I see as the root causes of effectiveness – and Ineffectiveness – in today’s knowledge work organisations, both large and small.

“I’d be delighted to hear if anyone here has any alternative explanations – or even partial explanations – for organisational effectiveness. This would meet my need for dialogue, for meaningful personal connections and for learning new things.

“To the extent that the ideas I’m presenting here today meet your needs in explaining these things, please take, use and share as much or as little of these ideas as you see fit.

“I’d be delighted to hear in the future what aspects of these ideas – if any – you have actually found useful and adopted. And which have proven less than useful, or even downright unhelpful, too.

“And I’d also be entirely delighted if you folks would be willing to contribute further to the evolutions of these ideas, and in tailoring them for best fit in this organisation.”

“We should not expect an application to work in environments for which its assumptions are not valid.” #Goldratt #TPS #Lean #tocot
~ @goldrattbooks

– Bob

Nonviolent Inspiration

February 15, 2013

Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Psychology, Snippet

Nonviolent Inspiration

My thanks go to Charlie Badenhop at Seishindo.org for an article containing the following quote:

Do you find yourself avoiding change?

”Change has a considerable psychological effect on the human mind.
To the fearful it is threatening because it means things might get worse.
To the hopeful it is encouraging because things might get better.
To the confident it is inspiring because a challenge exists to make things better.”
~ King Whitney Jr.

So, if our organisations use fear (along with obligation, guilt and shame) in attempts to meet their needs, then the “fearful” will only feel more threatened by the prospect of a bleaker future. How likely is that to bring about positive change – change for the better?

Conversely, if our organisations encourage hopefulness and confidence, then how likely is it that folks will feel encouraged and inspired by the possibilities of a brighter future?

– Bob

The Ethics of Change

April 15, 2013

Ethics, Organisational Therapy

8 Comments

The Ethics of Change

Engaged as I am in what some might choose to call a “change programme”, I’ve had some occasions to ponder recently the ethics of change.

It is ethical to change people? Even given the truism that we can’t change others, we can only change ourselves, is it ethical to even contemplate changes to a system (the way the work works) with the idea of maybe seeing some behavioral changes in the folks working within that system?

As my ethical system these days is fairly bound up with nonviolence, for me the question resolves to “is asking questions with an intent to raise folks’ awareness actually a kind of violence?”

And given that’s what I’ve been doing recently —asking such questions—how far can one travel down that road before it becomes an act of violence? Put another way, where does “making meaningful connections with folks, through dialogue” end, and “coercion through asking leading questions” begin?

My working position on the question, presently, revolves around the twin notions of informed choice and need.

Informed Choice

To the extent that people realise what’s going on, and that they understand that they have a choice whether to participate or not, then I can live with the situation.

Needs

In the vernacular of Rosenberg, do folks need some change? If not, then forcing or coercing anyone into change seems to cross the ethical line. But how to broach the question of needs with each individual? Is even asking the question, starting the conversation, on dodgy ground. How about if we ask the question “Would you be willing to have a conversation about the prospect of change here, and what your needs might be therein?”?

What about folks that don’t realise what’s going on? Or have not (yet) understood the optionality of the situation? Does it behove us to do everything possible to help them understand, or is that effort—in the absence of their consent and need for realisation—in itself unethical?

– Bob

Learning to Let Go

May 1, 2013

Coaching, Dialogue, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Product development, Rightshifting, Software development

6 Comments

Learning to Let Go

I’ve just come back from six weeks in Delhi, working there with around eighty people engaged in software development – mainly coding and testing – as members of a number of different product teams located in various other geographies around the world.

This post is by way of thanks to the Delhi folks for their hospitality, generous spirit, and humanity – and for helping me (re)learn a valuable lesson.

The Lesson Relearnt

The lesson in question is: people do not learn from hearing things.

I see my present role – of which my time in Delhi was but one example – as fundamentally about inviting folks’ curiosity and interest. No more, no less. In essence I am asking the question:

“Would you be willing to examine with me – or amongst yourselves – your current views and assumptions regarding the field of software and product development?”

Whether they choose to accede to the request or not matters to me – not because I have any agenda for them, but because my needs include making meaningful connections with people, and helping folks’ life become more wonderful. Given the amount of time folks spend at work, I can think of few better opportunities to pursue my needs. If people choose not to engage with my request, I respect that choice, even though I personally see it as a lost opportunity for all concerned.

Letting Go

So, of what am I “letting go”? I’m letting go of the need to be an expert. Of the need to have answers to their problems (I don’t even know their problems, really). And of the need to tell them all about how highly-effective software and product development works. As someone who has been examining my own views and assumptions of software and product development for the best part of forty years, I’m letting go of the idea that I can help people learn and grow by simply telling them things from my own experiences. Unless they ask. And they may not know that asking me is an option.

“We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”
~ Galileo Galilei

Some years ago, recognising the dysfunctions inherent in telling folks things, I used to withhold information unilaterally – until I thought folks were ‘ready’ to hear it, piece by piece. Having learned from e.g. Argyris, Noonan, Kline and Rosenberg, nowadays I try to make it clear that, to the extent that I have any knowledge or information that might be useful to someone, the timing and manner of its sharing can be something on which we can decide together.

I suspect this notion of self-paced ‘pulling’ of information or knowhow is pretty novel to many people. And so I suspect that many may not connect with the notion straight away. At least, not in a way that they might immediately benefit from.

Summary

In summary then, in attempting to help folks have a more wonderful life at work, I believe that if I have any part to play it’s in simply being there, with them, giving of my full attention:

“The quality of our attention determines the quality of other people’s thinking. Attention, driven by deep respect and genuine interest, and without interruption, is the key to a Thinking Environment.”
~ Nancy Kline, More Time To Think

– Bob

Slow Change

May 3, 2013

Organisational Therapy, Psychology, Rightshifting

5 Comments

Slow Change

Progress in learning organisations comes in its own time, at its own pace. Some folks might wish to see that pace accelerated.

“Be careful what you wish for, you may receive it”
~ from The Tale of the Monkey’s Paw

I share the belief of the folks in the Slow Movement, that care, concern for others, the building of meaningful connections and relationships – the bedrock of the learning organisation – is best tackled unforced and unhastily.

“The only thing for certain is that everything changes. The rate of change increases. If you want to hang on you better speed up. That is the message of today. It could however be useful to remind everyone that our basic needs never change. The need to be seen and appreciated! It is the need to belong. The need for nearness and care, and for a little love! This is given only through slowness in human relations. In order to master changes, we have to recover slowness, reflection and togetherness. There we will find real renewal.”
~ Professor Guttorm Fløistad

Where does that leave the frantic clamour for change in most organisations today? For the large part, I’d say it leaves it screaming into the wind. Forcing change faster than its natural pace makes no sense to me, bringing as it does a whole host of inevitable dysfunctions, such as stress, disassociation, and disaffection.

Better, I think, to take things as they come, to take careful steps, with maybe a tad of due consideration for progressing in the right direction.

And to take time to see each other as human beings, to encourage a sense of community, of a journey made together, not for the sake of arriving, but for the joy of the journey.

So, when considering the pace of change, would you be willing to fret a little less about seeing things happen faster, and become a little more comfortable with the natural rhythms and pace of events?

– Bob

Hyper-joyful

June 13, 2013

Agile, Coaching, Management, Organisational Therapy, Product development, Psychology, Software development

7 Comments

Hyper-joyful

Seligman refers to it as “flourishing”. Ackoff as “fun and meaningfulness”. Deming (originally) as “pride”. And Rosenberg builds the whole of Nonviolent Communication on the cornerstone of “joy”.

“Management’s job is to create an environment where everybody may take joy in his work.”
~ WE Deming

“If there isn’t joy in in work, you won’t get productivity, and you won’t get quality.”
~ Russell L. Ackoff

I don’t see joy being the explicit focus of much attention in the world of software and product development (or in many other theatres of work either, for that matter). This in itself makes me feel sad, for I have a need to see folks living a full and flourishing life. And I see work – for good or ill – as a major part of life in today’s world.

“I believe that the most joyful and intrinsic motivation human beings have for taking any action is the desire to meet our needs and the needs of others.”
~ Marshall B. Rosenberg

I feel even more sad when so many of the folks I ask seem to think that joy at work is not part of the equation or of the implicit “contract” of working for an employer. Although many folks do seem to have an interest in the subject, once it’s brought to their attention.

Even Dan Pink (Drive) has little to say about joy, directly.

I believe, as did Deming, that joy in work “unleashes the power of human resource contained in intrinsic motivation”, and that doing “quality” work is the source of much of that joy.

And as a practising Organisational Therapist with an keen interest in Positive Psychology, I’d rather devote my efforts to spreading joy than to e.g. correcting deficiencies and dealing with the inevitable consequences of a lack of joy.

I’ve given this post the title “hyper-joyful” in reaction to the concept of “hyper-productivity” which I’ve seen bandied-about more and more often recently. I can’t help but feel scornful and dismissive – and yes, sad, too – every time I hear or see the term “hyper-productive”. It’s not like Agile often lives up to that aspiration, in any case. Who, in fact, can get a feel-good feeling about hyper-productivity?

“The 14 Points all have one aim: to make it possible for people to work with joy.”
~ WE Deming

Personally, I’d feel much happier if more folks talked a bit more about hyper-joyfulness – and a bit less about hyper-productivity.

How about you? Would you be willing to raise the topic of joy and joyfulness in your workplace, and with your peers?

Semper mirabilis!

– Bob

The Power of Humane Relationships

July 12, 2013

Agile, Fellowship, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Psychology

5 Comments

The Power of Humane Relationships

“Agile works, when it works, by offering an environment in which people can relate to each other in new and more meaningful, humane ways.”

It seems like agile software development now has the attention of some folks in C-suites around the world. It’s no longer just a local issue for developers, development teams or IT departments.

Executives are hearing, and increasingly, believing all the hype about how agility can bring business benefits like improved quality, faster delivery, increased levels of innovation, reduced costs and the like (all more myth than reality, btw).

Most folks see Agile as “just” another kind of methodology, with the same set of issues in making it happen (training, tools, processes, and so on). And like other methodologies, most folks – even those directly involved – attribute its power to increased clarity, common standards, discipline, process, reduced uncertainty, etc.

Few have even an inkling that the power of agile comes from a different source entirely. One very alien to most people and most organisations. It’s the power of human – and humane – relationships. The kind of relationships that we very rarely see manifest in traditional businesses.

Mistaking the nature of Agile, most – upwards of 75% – of all agile adoptions fail to deliver on expectations. Few organisations that commit to adopting Agile even begin to realise the implications of such a commitment. Few anticipate the sweeping upheavals in all aspects of their business – HR, finance, sales, marketing, and above all, general management – that absolutely have to happen to see agile work well, and an adoption succeed (long-term).

The core of agile depends utterly on seeing the world of work in a fundamentally different light. A light which illuminates the significance of things like:

Intrinsic motivation (McGregor – cf Theory Y in The Human Side of Enterprise)
Autonomy (Dan Pink – Drive)
Growth Mindset (Carol Dweck – Mindset)
A Thinking Environment (Nancy Kline – More TIme to Think)
Continual learning (Peter Senge – The Fifth Disciple)
Systems Thinking (Ackoff, Deming, Senge)
Group Dynamics (e.g. Lencioni – The Five Dysfunctions of a Team)
Alignment on Shared Purpose
Skilled dialogue (William Isaacs – Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together)
Improved cognitive function and the necessary environment thereto
Ba (cf Nonaka)
People that care about what they’re doing

But all of the above are, essentially, just characteristics of a workplace where folks relate effectively to one another as fellows, sharing the journey together.

I have the conviction that it’s the quality – some may say health – of relationships that makes for effective software development. And for effective business, too. And that’s why these days I focus on organisational therapy as the means to improve the quality of such relationships.

Woud you be willing to share your view on this conviction?

– Bob

Does Your Boss Care About You?

September 1, 2013

Agile, Fellowship, Leadership, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Psychology, Rightshifting, Software development

8 Comments

Does Your Boss Care About You?

More specifically, does your boss, or company as a whole, care about your state of mind? About your levels of motivation and engagement?

I can only assume, from both personal experiences and from numerous recent studies into the high levels of disengagement and demotivation of employees in businesses, that the answer is generally a resounding “No!”.

Abdication, Absolution and Blame

I’ve often felt that organisations I’ve worked with don’t give a damn about their folks’ state of mind – mine included. Moreover, it seems a widespread condition to regard an employee’s motivation and level of engagement as something each employee is entirely responsible for, on their own. And thus that disengaged employees are themselves to blame for their state of disengagement. With the likely and direct remedy of simply letting them go (firing them or, more passively – and more commonly – waiting until they get so pissed-off that they leave of their own accord).

Put another way, I have seen many bosses say, implicitly, “If so-and-so can’t find the passion | enthusiasm | courage | whatever to buck themselves up and get with the programme, then they can just bloody well sod off.”

It’s as if the mere notion of paying people for working absolves the organisation, and its managers, of any and all responsibilities for their folks’ state of mind.

It seems much like blaming poor people for their poverty, or “stupid” people for their stupidity. This is not the Way of the Psychotherapist.

And given this prevailing, and so often unstated dynamic, how much more difficult is it for folks to bring up the issue? I mean, it’s a bit like admitting to mental health problems, isn’t it? How much is admitting to being demotivated, in a scenario where you can reasonably be expected to be held entirely responsible, a bit like saying to your boss “Hey, I’m a looney! Can you or the company help me with that?”.

The Psychotherapist’s Way

From my perspective, I’ve long believed that folks’ state of mind is around 95% a product of the “system” (the nature of their job/role/work, including the many social relationships therein). And when in “management” or “leadership” positions, I’ve always felt it my responsibility to both find out how folks are feeling (their general state of mind) and to do what I can to change the system to help improve that.

I don’t see many (some, exceptional, people, but not many) in similar positions doing this. Maybe that’s one reason (amongst many) that I have such a downer on the whole notion of management and leadership. At least in fellowship, we might more reasonably expect folks to look out for each other, care about each other’s state of mind, and work together on things that might make a positive difference?

How do you feel about all this? What would you like to have happen at your workplace to help you with your state of mind? Have you asked or otherwise raised the subject yet?

– Bob

Per Diem

September 10, 2013

Financial, Organisational Therapy

4 Comments

Per Diem

[Tl:Dr: On what I charge, and why I charge it.]

Towards the end of his life, Picasso was charging around $2500 per minute for his work. And folks paid it. They knew that his work was worth it. Not (just) aesthetically. But commercially, too. A piece by Picasso would obviously fetch enormous sums at auction.

Now, I’m no Picasso, not even in my own field (organisational psychotherapy). And I don’t charge $2500 per minute for my work. Actually, I’m pretty sure Picasso didn’t have a per diem or per minutem rate in his head when he set his price for a piece.

But sometimes folks ask me for a per diem rate for my work. I guess it’s what they’re used to from “consultants”.

Aside: I run pell-mell away from that kind of label, and its implicit associations.

I guess my reluctance to talk per diem numbers also loses me work from time to time. I’d rather that than play the per diem game.

But recently, in line with making no more stupid punts, I’m resigned to being more open about what I charge. Of course I’d like to charge by outcomes. Or “value add”. I have offered a guarantee of value for some twenty years now. And I do a lot of work for free, too. It’s not like I want to be rich, or even that I see my income as some gauge of my personal worth as an individual. The work is by far the biggest reward, in itself. By which I mean the opportunity to work with others – yes, people – on things having meaningful purpose.

Yes, money affords us options. I’m acutely aware of how my stance limits my options. Never more so than now, in fact.

So for the record, my considered response to the question “what is your day rate” is now, for simplicity: “My daily rate is variable – generally from £400 to £1500 per diem (plus expenses) – mainly depending on how much I want to do a thing”.

At least this can serve to get the ball rolling.

Ultimately, the client is the judge of the worth of whatever I do. And, in psychotherapy in particular, the client is the deciding factor in the value of the outcome itself. Even more so than in, say, software development.

I remain, however, aware of the value of a healthy organisation over a sick one. And few organisations seem capable of healing themselves. Many folks baulk at the pay rates of CEOs for example, yet those closer to the reality of typical organisations understand just how much the CEO affects the health of his or her organisation, for good or ill.

Aside: Would I like to be a CEO again? Sometimes I think yes, and sometime no. I guess, like so many other opportunities that come along, it depends.

Factors

In case you’re wondering here’s a list of the factors involved in me setting my per diem rate:

How busy I want to be: I assume higher rates will limit the number of days I work.
Job satisfaction: I assume lower rates will increase the opportunities to work with engaged, curious clients, and enthusiastic people.
A clear brief: Clarity makes for a happier me, so “compensation” is less necessary
Suitable information, tools and equipment to do a good job: Nickel-and-diming on facilities means a higher rate to compensate for the unpleasantness.
Opportunities to be busy: I love what I do, at least, when I’m doing what I love, and am happy to take home less for that opportunity.
Feedback: Feedback helps me to improve. The more feedback I get (in a form that I can use) the happier I am and thus the lower the rate.
Humane relationships: When folks see me as a person, I’m happier, and so a lower rate is no biggie.
Growth: The chance to learn, grow and share (publicly) makes me happy, so again a lower rate works for me.
Appreciating my contribution.
Seeing others benefit.
A likeminded community – executives and workers both.
Making friends, and meaningful connections thereby.
Frank discussions about progress
Length of assignment: Longer assignments mean I spend less (unpaid) time looking for new work, and so lower my rates.
Travel. I dislike travelling, so raise my rate where much travel (either frequency or distance) is involved. Also, who gets to carry the cost of the time spent in travelling?

– Bob

Are You Brave Enough?

Organisational Mettle

Courage

Judgement

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

My Organisational Psychotherapy Toolkit

Solution focus (Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg)

Further Reading

Dialogue (William Isaacs)

P.E.R.M.A. (Martin Seligman)

StrengthsFinder (Marcus Buckingham)

Social Styles (Wilson Learning)

Clean Language (David Grove)

Family Therapy (Virginia Satir)

Bohm Dialogue (David Bohm)

Further Reading

World Café

Further Reading

Nonviolent communication (Rosenberg)

Further Reading

Cognitive Biases

Further Reading

Action Science (Chris Argyris)

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger)

Coaching for Performance (Sir John Whitmore)

The Inner Game (Timothy Gallwey et al)

Further Reading

Theory of Constraints (Goldratt)

Further Reading

Systems Thinking (Ackoff)

Further Reading

Group Dynamics (William McDougall et al)

Further Reading

Systems Archetypes (Senge)

Further Reading

Lateral Thinking (Edward de Bono)

Further Reading

Managing Transitions (William Bridges, Kurt Lewin passim)

Further Reading

Client-Centered Therapy (Carl Rogers)

Further Reading

Ram Dass

Integrative Therapy (Jeffrey Kottler)

Further Reading

Transactional Analysis (Eric Berne)

Further Reading

General Semantics (Korzybski)

Further Reading

Action Research, Force Field Analysis (Kurt Lewin)

Further Reading

Thinking Environments (Nancy Kline)

Other Influences in my Practice

Share the joy :)

Individual vs Organisational Psychotherapy

Organisational Psyche

Psyche

Organisation

Therapy

Adaptation

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

The Organisational Therapist’s Experience

The Therapist

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

The Organisation’s Therapy Experience

The Client

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

Seven Reasons Why Every Business Needs a Therapist

Purpose

Benefits of Therapy

Summary

Share the joy :)

The Next Revolution

How Soon?

Implications for Business

Organisational Psychology

Are You Ready?