In the name of ‘dynamic adjustment’ – Teams in Downturns and Upheavals

I have facilitated interactions in top teams to unblock their energies on several occasions. The period post-2008 has been particularly interesting for the insights each facilitation experience threw up. Let us examine some of them.

1.       Risk-averse team players are unaware of what they are unaware.

Teams in crisis are often hostage to the choices of key individuals. That is to say that if the authority is active in the team, there’s at least one person with titular or social power over others in the team.  The sheer discretion in sanction makes this power amplified in experience. With unequal advantage over specified resources like money and material, they tend to swear by deliverables (deliverance is another conversation). They are seduced and mesmerised in trappings of an economic contract that also gives them social power over others, irrespective of and sometimes, in spite of their knowledge of tasks and their impact. Yes.

They are risk averse for the most part, and fend their role boundaries to preserve their social identity perceptions. In doing so, they endanger their respective teams and the aggregate top team too.

Let us say there are 4 such persons with their respective pyramids in a team at the top. These 4 persons are in most cases found stuck in a dynamic that is more concerned with their fiefs than with what they could accomplish between themselves. They get so busy with short-feedback loops of tasks within their control, that they fail to see the larger picture. Seeking job security in and with operational execution, they leave overall strategic leadership matters to chance. This is not the conversational upward delegation syndrome, but the wishful thinking that if operations are ensured, strategy would be taken care of by those with the social power. Oh, how they blind each other without knowing it! The alibi they project status quo in is sworn integrity to their respective roles!

2.       Teams in crisis tend to reap the very whirlwind they want to avoid 

Why? Very strange, you may say. In a variation of the Abilene paradox, my learning has been that due to their excessive task orientation, team-members under-estimate the inter-personal competence required to confront each other. Such underdeveloped synchrony of social intelligence blocks from themselves the learning pregnant in their environments. Whether industry trends, innovative technologies and business processes of competition; these signals are below any radar that the team may have to interpret meaning and consequence.

In selfish motives of trying to protect their jobs in limited loops with a supervisor, they are uncomfortable testing early understanding of team synergy. Leaders at the top grope for reasons of team dysfunctionality. They pigeon-hole their slices of convenient evidence in a fragments of a whole. Reality eludes them like heaven eludes the strivers on earth. Why did old-fashioned diligence, consistency of purpose, charm and civility do little to protect them from the deep impasse? Found wanting for courage individually and collectively, they are often like children at a fair who lose their way in the festive spirit of an aimless crowd. Then they ask the control room to announce over the public address system that they have lost each other!

In one case, a CEO was just too nice to others within his team (read excessive need for approval), that he forgot to appreciate how the kindness killed his own edge in influencing them to do what they may not do otherwise. In another case, the leader was caught up in making a mark with revenue top-lines. He destroyed his own capacity to absorb and detect signals from his team to the impending long-term incapacity of the organisation. There have also been cases of cross-border team initiatives, where out of sight had been out of mind, until a facilitation opportunity meant speaking issues to each other’s face, and realising as a consequence how they hold themselves back habitually.

3.       Goals trump Style, but Style trumps the moment.

I have often found that when members are fused with a sense of shared purpose, seldom do they consider interpersonal issues as the dynamic of focus. They may focus on procedures, protocols or even role and team charters. Team Maturity takes time with each other.

Consensual social attraction also imbues the leader with powers of sanction with apparent status.  This creates a status-based distinction within the group.  The leader(s) and followers syndrome kicks in without much bother, due to limitations in interpersonal range. This has characteristics of unequal status intergroup relations.

 In addition, a fundamental attribution process constructs a charismatic leadership personality for the leader, which further empowers the leader and sharpens the leader–follower status hiatus. This prototype-based leadership breeds a lack of debate, and the team drains up energy faster than they know what goals they are assembled for in the first place.

In rhythmic consonance, members in a team tend to get set in patterns. These patterns are signaled by the behaviors emitted between the leader and the immediate roles around the leader role. If social power is usurped through charisma, the leader’s style has disproportionate influence over less assertive souls whose allegiance is as fragile as the regularity of their pay-check. In this syndrome, team Goals are trumped by the leader’s style. It takes a deft facilitation to depersonalise the team construct in such cases, and then design for the alternate choices for those involved in the team. The opportunity can unfold possibilities for all members with stake in the situation. Design thinking is so vital here.

Prickly downturn situations are like this fencing around a rotting stem 

Summary: Trust from togetherness is germane to the human bond irrespective of economic climate. We underestimate is the power of the environment beyond the organisation’s boundary.  It determines climate and culture in the organisation, much more than we care to acknowledge.

It is such a contrast that in years of business growth, arrogance, hubris, competitive myopia and turf wars dominated as dysfunctions in a team. It may be quick and convenient to label and look for similar phenomena in downturns. In downturns, the patterns of team dynamics are not as clear or similarly bracketed. They are a mix of role design, goal clarity, and procedural constraints that get played out through anxious overtones of a myriad personality.

Perhaps, there is a remnant of behaviors learnt during economic growth in downturn dynamics too. In teams experiencing the downturn, situations are ripe with first signs of overlearning. When left to themselves, team-members are unable to use alternate approaches or styles in interaction, let alone focus on goals, roles and procedures that can enable effective interactions. It takes conscious effort to ask and assist when in top leadership teams.

It is in unconscious regression to known ways of operation that past learning deceives us. Phenomena of emergent nature are not the same as problems of yesterday.  The teaming paradox related to learning is this : The capability to get past setbacks and the resilience to successfully overcome constraints is not a stored capability, but a capacity to be explored in interdependence. 

What have you experienced in teams of today? What do you see as you look beyond the balloon bursting cracks of pent-up cynicism? And the cake plastering on faces that feign compensation for lack of recognition?

As we think, so do we become?

In the last few weeks I have seen many busy hours of toil. They were followed by many hours of restful activity – as in soulful conversations with people from ages 84, old school and college mates  to teen-age children. Witnessed meditative sculptors, handicraft hands, painters, and interacted with writers 

of Indian diaspora of different genres. The tales they hold in their expressions have lessons for me in the way frenzied corporate denizens get about their days at work. Let me share a few reflections.

Anu Kumar, Author

1.       Employees get unrelated development, and employers may not know it. This is an amazing occurrence, when the employee gets to participate in learning events and feels satiated by what is on offer. The employer feels that the arrangement was apt and both go about their businesses without critically reflecting on how they co-designed their experiences. Employers fail to recognise that employees do not challenge their own conditions enough to challenge the relevance of the employer’s offerings in learning and development. At one such organisation, the conundrum was this – the employer felt they did better than they ever did in caring for employee development, whereas the employees felt that the employer’s efforts lacked alignment with business focus areas!

Diaspora in LA

2.       Employers rarely reflect within of what they may be missing in their situation. A consultant’s vantage point is to hear from a myriad voices. While one employee voice was to do with unchecked deceit and overt manipulation of innocent employees, another was to do with short-sightedness of top management in the nature of decisions they made regarding business growth. The folly of assuming omnipotence in turning employee and organisational capability 'on' or 'off'. Authenticity at the workplace is most signaled by those who have control over resources. Yet the vulnerability to face unknowns seems a mirage. In the bargain, unknowns like global warming, mass inequities in wealth sharing and unmindful citizenship rear their ugly forms.

3.       The need to defend status quo needs a healthy challenge from those who want to challenge the status quo. The paradox of defending the indefensible lurks round the corner. The Abilene paradox is a great reminder of human perceptual processes in a group setting. Teams end up committing to outcomes that they do not want. At one organisation, the HR fraternity recognised the signs of their times, but furiously wished to defend what their management wanted to listen to. When the top management listened to consultants they seemed more taken by what they could contribute to larger society than in marshalling the potential of their own employees. Now, why would the consultant be more committed to their clients’ employees than their own management?

Mandakini Mathur of the Devrai Farm, Panchgani 

4.       Whole system is not in the room. The bane of high power-distance cultures is the untended potential of the minions. I have been often met the optimism of an entrepreneur, on whose convictions a possibility in engagement is born. Midwife like facilitation begins almost thereafter, because the entrepreneur’s real difficulty is in getting his team to express themselves more fully to the moments that they see their firm in. Most such organisations have a painful realization that organisational capabilities are group or team orchestrations than about messianic release from constraints.

5.       Rationality makes for superficial defense, reality descends in tears of wisdom. Finally a word about the individual in our times. Schools of influence like Cialdini’s and Hogan’s all remind us that emotionality trumps rationality. Yet, in armors that are put forth as façade, individuals within and outside corporations hold out rationalisations that do not connect with people they try to relate to. In defense of their ‘intellect’ they overstretch generalisations to the extent of mis-reading their situations. When I get proximate enough in calibrating their stances, they recognise their folly, but alas, it may take a lifetime to bring their being to their moments. In avoiding tears, we deny a part of our under-nourished selves. People chase mirages of achievement with such predictability that it may put the solar system’s regularity to shame.

In the noble traditions of Organisation Development (OD), the model of the human being is not just a philosophical alignment with humanism, truth and justice. It is a rapport of congruence and a statement of capability. Like what the Naked Liberal George Menezes shared with me about the origins of Integrity : it is from the word ‘integer’ – the whole. Do we accept the whole person in ourselves? For what greater purpose would people want to avoid becoming who they can fully become? 

Leadership Turning Points - A process for Growth

Discovery of one’s turning points is an event in life. Like threads that stitch the fabric of meaning, your experiences sit well with wholesome integration.  We succeed with strengths that help us in a certain situation. Overused strengths can become limitations.                                                                     

The treasure of potential is in the paradoxical constraints we place on ourselves. Identify them to your benefit and develop with assurance into the future.   In Leadership Turning Points, the process is about you, and not some distant ideal.

Who would benefit?	Middle and Senior Level Leaders with at least 10 years of work experience who wish to make reliable insights into their leadership enablers and derailers
Why?	Prepare your leadership self for a rapidly changing world
What do you get?	1.       Experiential reflection of your leadership journey in a thorough process 2.       150 Plus Traits Details and Preferences highlighting Life Themes and Strengths 3.       Leadership Paradox Report based on Paradox Technology™ (Harrisons) 4.       Personal attention on your Leadership Development Plan
What do you invest?	Rs. 12,530/-  inclusive of taxes, (for 2 days workshop  and process, Trait Report, Paradox report, lunch and refreshments  & upto 6 post-workshop coaching sessions).
Where do you pay?	Write Cheque / DD towards “Workplace Catalysts LLP” payable at par HDFC Bank, Branch: HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore – 560043.  OR Online payment  mode (preferred) at RTGS / NEFT IFSC : HDFC0000353 Account Number: 03532560001966 Account Type : Current. Please quote online transaction reference number after you make payment to help us link your nomination with payment.

Pay by deadline of Jan 10, 2013 to reserve your seat (No more than 20 participants for this workshop. Avoid cancellation charge of 50% of course fee). Write to josephg@workplacecatalysts.com for pre-workshop preparations. Feel free to seek any clarification to help your participation.

Venue : SAIACS CEO Centre – (Kindly register directly with the Center in case you wish overnight accommodation at very reasonable rates under Rs. 2500/- per person, per night)
SAIACS, BOX 7747,Gubbi Cross Road, Kothanur Post Bangalore 560077, Phone:91-80-23681725-1727
Fax:91-80-28465412. Click here for Location Map. Email : ceo.centre@saiacs.org

READ FACILITATOR DETAILS HERE

Measure for Success not for Seats filled - Are you both eligible and suitable?

Always useful to listen to a creator like Dr. Dan Harrison. The enmeshment of mathematical matrices and psychology of human preferences or tendencies is the Harrisons Assessment Talent Solutions (HATS). This note is to help recall some salient aspects of Dan’s approach. Am glad I had some direct interaction of high quality with him over the past few months. This is from my recent one on May 23, 2012 in Bangalore.

1.       In human assessments, especially for the workplace, two fundamental purposes need fulfillment. They are a) Predict Job Success and b) Inspire Performance. Now while that may seem obvious and ordinary, the uniqueness of such languaging is that values for science through measurement and values for humanism through accurate concern for human beings are both accomplished in HATS without compromise or deception.

2.       Without a method to integrate both prediction and inspiration, we find that the larger picture in relation to an incumbent’s job is lost. Often, we hire for eligibility or what people do, and fire for lack of suitability or for what people eventually become. Quite a shame is that not?

3.       In recruitment and related people management processes, for want of method, the numbers in measurement that business reviews today are the number of seats filled or attrition by some direct cost related demographic. Filling seats does not guarantee capability against competition. The measurements required are that of target role eligibility criteria, and person-job-fit for suitability.

4.       Suitability is more than just personality. Personality includes motivation for the job and attitudes towards it that a person has. Suitability includes personality and work preferences and interests. So, when hiring a person for selling medical equipment, over-emphasis on product or market knowledge may blind us from more determining factors such as self-improvement in a turbulent market.  In customer service roles, almost 70% of weight-age should go to suitability, than to eligibility criteria.

5.       Personality hardly remains stable across cultures. Suitability criteria for jobs or roles hold relatively constant across cultures. Hence, assessments that are job or role centric will yield better outcomes, than assessments on rule of thumb or those that are merely ‘assessment’ centric.

6.       Generally speaking the weightage criteria between eligibility and suitability would be 50:50 for upper management roles, 30:70 for middle management roles and 70:30 for entry level roles.

7.       When recruiting, do the most cost effective steps first. E.g. eliminate ‘spam’ candidates. Specify eligibility requirements in ways that weed out irrelevant applications. Then check for suitability. Until then there is no point interacting with them on a face to face basis. If the applicant is both eligible and suitable, you may then go for work sample tests or aptitude third-party assessments like verbal or numerical reasoning. Lowering your costs means knowing how to configure job success criteria.

8.       To ensure predictability of job success, measure ALL aspects of behaviors, including motivation, interests, personality, work-values and preferences. Missing any one will adversely affect the outcome. Without measuring at least 100 traits or tendencies, the complex construct of personality and suitability will be less robust in measurement.

9.       You’ve heard of the lie-detector. Missing reliable ways to test authenticity of response will lower predictability of assessment. For top or upper management roles, you need at least 90% consistency in response authenticity scores. Generally, you will need at least 75% consistency to predict job success through assessment.

10.    75% consistency in response is required to assure satisfaction on the job.  The gap today is that we do not look for what employees want in a job or role. Go further, and the questions become of what methods do we use to get such data about employees' interests and work preferences?

11.    The valid issue today is how do we cut people from the misery of uninformed choices regarding vocations we pursue? Do we end up cutting people from jobs that will inspire them?

So what is then the best data that will help the world of work today? Is it not data on what will make people succeed on their jobs? Hire for passion, train for skills! 


Develop for relationship and help people uncover their paradoxical constraints.  People develop polarities over time. They can uncover them through the Paradox Technology (TM). I particularly enjoyed Dan's humility when I mentioned of Barry Johnson's approach to Polarity Management. These come handy when coaching my executive clients. Just last week, an entrepreneur wondered at the insights he got, and realized what a sustained process development should be. Development is indeed no trifle either, as I have earlier written.

Centering in Core States

Leaders who bring facts to the table make a good contribution. They reduce the chances of the amygdala hijack. For those not familiar with this term – it is the fearful arrest of wise choice when under stress.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala_hijack). Those who present their facts in an endearing way have certainly a higher chance of making the desired impact. This implies that influential people succeed on at least two acts of mastery – managing emotions within oneself and dealing with others’ emotions.

Of late, people summon data that float in the cyber space. With the advent of Murphy’s laws (http://www.murphys-laws.com/) a trend ensued for the internet era. Prime among them being Metcalf’s law
(http://www-ec.njit.edu/~robertso/infosci/metcalf.html) and Moore’s Law (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.html). It is trendy to quote analyst claims from financial business houses or from commercial research houses with just as much authority as Newton had on the laws of gravity. The other day, on Steve Jobs demise, several used the incident to paint pictures of topics as diverse as innovation, leadership, and yes the recession in the economy.

A seasoned veteran from the world of business surrendered at our plight – ‘all of this is illusion, an analysis that paralyses anyway’ he mused. One implication of that musing I thought, was the woeful lack of awareness of being in the process. Commenting on change when outside of it is different from reporting it while being in it. Another is that which Dr. Richard McHugh SJ impressed upon me. "There is no such thing as TIME". We either live 'through time' dissociated from the events of a distant source as an analyst report or live 'in time' when the present moment is interpreted within the self, associated with the meaning of an involved state of feeling.

Today I came across the term ‘centring’ again – as in a state of being that is productive through effective self-management of emotions. Our living is made in the dance between unrestrained emotionality in joyful outbursts and controlled resilience in the face of adversity. Leaders who lack clarity when dealing with contrasts in their states of being, unintentionally signal confusion and provide evidence of their search for meaning in their own lives. Maturity often descends on the one who is balanced in the versatility to handle polarities. Like being frank and diplomatic both, in a forthright diplomacy; or being risk-taking and analytical of pitfalls in a mindful courage. Beneath or above such poles that we straddle, could lie the core state in which our values coalesce in a near indelible signature of our identities. Is Peace at the core? Or Joy? Or Restfulness? May the compassion from that state be with the ones you are with.