Apprentice Australia - Episode 1 review, RWA: Foundation & Force

Summary - an introduction to a series of blog posts that I'll be writing about episodes of the TV series, The Apprentice Australia. Each will include Real-World Applications (RWAs), so you don't have to watch the TV series, or even be in Australia, to benefit from the insights on offer.


The Apprentice Australia kicked off last night. In the next few weeks I'll post a series of comments on the series. I think there's a danger in presenting, as this series can do, primarily the negative and emotionally reactive side of human behaviour in organizations. While it makes for "good" TV, I think it can also have a depressing effect on viewers who may conclude that people are pretty much rubbish all the time and there's not much to be done about it.

I therefore want to use The Apprentice Australia episodes as behavioural "case studies" and, acting in the role of shadow external consultant or coach, offer a useful counterbalance as I share my hypotheses on the group dynamics and individual personality preferences.

I'll going to suggest some ways that things could go differently and more productively if, instead of being in the decidedly unreal world of "reality TV", these people's behaviour were taking place in a real team, in the real world. Each post will therefore offer a Real World Application that you can use even if you don't follow the series or are not in Australia.

The Apprentice format

As anyone who's watched the series in the US or UK will know, the interview process used to find a new Apprentice is necessarily artificial and made-for-"reality"-TV.

Contestants are typically given short timelines to accomplish very broadly-defined tasks, all with the same goal: make maximum cash. For the losing team, it's back to the Boardroom where the knives come out and someone's sent home. In other words, these are "teams" in name only, since in reality each participant looks out for him/herself.

Welcome to the corporate dogfight pit.

Now, reality TV shows are rarely instructive. So are there any lessons about human behaviour that we as viewers of The Apprentice can learn and relate to our own workplace on a daily basis?

Well I think there are. Despite the artifice of the show, it does offer a prime example of what happens when high-pressure scenarios trigger reactive emotional responses and actions that are not well adapted to the situation...in other words, really pretty rubbish and childish behaviour.


The Battle inside your Brain - balance or blowout?

Moment by moment there is a battle being waged inside your brain. Your limbic system (emotional: fast, reactive, habitual) is producing knee-jerk impulses driven by the survival instinct, while your cortical system (cognitive: reasoning, reflective, considerate) is doing its best to apply your brain's vast ability for mental processing to the effort to modulate, consider and channel this tremendous emotional energy into productive and adaptive behaviours.

Or to put it another way: you've got a fast-acting part of you that's a bit like an impulsive child, and a slower, wiser part of you that guides you toward making the smart move...but can often be subverted in times of high stress and perceived threat. Balance is the key; blowouts can also results. The Apprentice interview format specializes in scenarios geared to produce more blowouts than balance, as this week's episode has already shown...

Episode 1 review

This week we were introduced to all 12 contestants along with the Boss, Australian businessman Mark Bouris, and his two advisors in the series, Diane Stone and Brad Seymour.

As a relatively new arrival in Australia I'm not familiar with the track record of either Mr. Bouris or his advisors (one an ex-footie player, the other his PA). So in this post I'll just look at what happened with the losing team and who heard the famous phrase, "You're fired!"

Let me set some context. In this series of posts I'll not make any predictions about who will be the winner. This is because practically speaking, it's impossible to tell which person has the "right" traits and personality preferences to win the competition, because "right" (in terms of adaptive and effective, producing the desired outcome) will vary tremendously according to any number of factors, including:

• makeup of the team - and as a function of that, quality of reactions/interactions with other team members
  
• degree to which the person's talents and abilities (to the degree he/she can successfully deploy them) are a good match for the task undertaken; not everyone's cut out for every type of task, and it's in these situations when the team must pull together and complement each other's skills
  
• seeing someone's "intro" interview tells you very little about how they will cope under real pressure; what's key is their ability to self-manage and stay focused/productive when faced with real-life dramas
  
• and many other variables...people are complex adaptive creatures so making predictions based on extrapolation of a few data points is nearly impossible

An additional, decisive variable is that the choice of who stays and who goes ultimately rests with Mr. Bouris, who will not directly observe contestants' behaviour during the tasks (depending on his advisors for second-hand information). He will make his decisions based almost exclusively on behaviour he sees in the Boardroom - a high-pressure, politically-charged, personally threatening and therefore survival-mode-triggering setting.

Moving on to assess this week's results, I would argue that it was a lack of political savvy that cost Jane her spot in the competition and saved Carmen from certain elimination for her incompetence as project leader.

Carmen's leadership style is a classic example of Commanding/Coercive, a style that demands immediate compliance and says, "Do what I tell you to do." Furthermore,

If a leader always and only uses only the commanding/coercive style, the overall impact on organizational climate will be negative. While the team will feel the pressure and drive to complete tasks, there is a risk they will ultimately feel alienated and uninvolved by the coercive leader's tendency to create the entire plan without any input from others, then expect others to follow and not ask questions.

Carmen's own awareness of her style and impact on others is minimal. She tended to steamroll others with a powerful ego and drive - one that unfortunately for her is not paired with little self-awareness of how she comes across to other people.

When queried on how things went with one task, for example, she replied that she "put on my power hat" and charged through to an outcome. This is illustrative of her emotional reactive (limbic) style: focused on Power, with her as Protector and taking any dissent, criticism or rejection as an excuse for aggression and revenge. Asked in the Boardroom by Mr. Bouris how she performed as project lead, she confidently stated: "Extremely well!"...which occasioned immediate looks of surprise and disagreement from her team, and tears from her.

Carmen honestly felt that she was driving ahead for the greater good of the team and must have felt betrayed by the sudden realization that they did not see, or value, her role in the same way. This dose of reality for her was as unexpected as it was unwelcome and hurtful. Here we could see some of the vulnerability that her hard outer shell and relentless drive is meant to keep hidden from others.

Nevertheless, the facts are as follows: as project lead Carmen charged ahead with little consultation with her team, poor understanding of the task, grossly underestimated the work required for the projects, underquoted on the projects and then - abandoning all integrity and accountability to the client - tried an 11th hour renegotiation when it was clear that they would struggle to deliver the agreed project on time. These factors, particularly the underquoting, cost her team the victory.

In his assessment of the girls' team, Mr. Bouris accurately observed, "as a team you are completely dysfunctional." Despite the clear evidence for why this was so, he chose not to hold Carmen as team leader accountable. Instead, he placed the responsibility on the team: "right now there's no accountability, it's all down to the project manager, she was too bossy and told us what to do," and further, "there's no room in my organization for a shrinking violet."

On this basis - largely, I would say, based on the single exchange that took place between Carmen and Jane in the Boardroom, Jane was fired, for allegedly not "using her additional experience to hold Carmen to task."

So the lessons from this week's Boardroom:

• charging ahead and doing lots of things (even if quite badly) is less harmful to your survival chances than being more considered and less combative, and
  
• the implicit message of Mr. Bouris's decision to fire Jane not Carmen: when it comes to accountability, leaders don't make mistakes in my organization, underlings do...and will take the fall for it (take note, future Apprentice!)

I've written elsewhere about the need for balance between bold action and considered planning. Popular wisdom provides phrases in favour of both functions, so that while "Fortune favours the bold" and "He who hesitates is lost" are sometimes true, there's also the fact (as this week with Carmen's team) that she should have "Looked before she leaped" into underquoting jobs and she ought to have "Measured twice, cut once" when it came to assessing how much work was truly involved with each project.

Instead, Carmen's team was unified only in stating there was no plan or strategy in place. To paraphrase Canadian political economist and humourist Stephen Leacock, as leader Carmen just "flung herself upon her horse and rode madly off in all directions."


Real-World Application (RWA)

What sort of behaviour is most often rewarded in your organization?

1. Is there a bias for action over planning, with the result that you sometimes put a lot of effort into something only to discover you've headed off in the wrong direction to begin with and that effort is now wasted?
2. Or is there a great tendency to plan and "strategize" endlessly, awaiting new data and ensuring all available information is gathered and options are explored...resulting only in analysis paralysis and inactivity?

To create high performance teams and ensure effective execution on strategy, it's vital to strike the right balance between Role and Reward:

ROLE you do successfully by A) establishing a sense of community (with shared values, a code of conduct, and understanding of how the group adds value in a wider context), and B) letting people know how and where each individual fits into the larger group. Clarify the roles, goals and expectations so that each person's individual efforts are contributing to the group objectives and goals. Build a solid, agreed-upon foundation at the outset to provide an underlying source of enduring continuity in the face of transition, change and even crisis periods to come.

REWARD is about motivation, action and reward - the drive to achievement that comes from the healthy expression of ego and answers the question "what's in it for me?" to tap into the passion and drive of each team member. It is results-focused and promotes action over words, performance over process. To keep people on track and productive, it's important to phrase performance measures in positive language that motivates, rather than coercive language that triggers emotional reactivity and fearful anxiety. This step is about getting things done, the achievement of aspirations.

Look for Monday's post, when I'll provide insights on the remaining 11 contestants - what to watch for in Monday night's episode as their mettle continues to be tested and their personality preferences and reactive styles come to the fore.
.

Matthew Lieberman & Case Study at NeuroPower Symposium Sydney

Summary - this post talks about ideas and research shared by social cognitive neuroscience Prof. Matthew Lieberman (UCLA) at the recent NeuroPower Symposium in Sydney. It explores some personal and organizational appliations of neuroscience findings, including what I call "The Battle inside your Brain". Finally as a practical example you'll find the case study I presented at the Symposium, describing how tmconsultancy helped develop a high performance internal communications team at Lloyds TSB bank (includes a link to the full text of the case study).


Matt Lieberman and I first met a year ago here in Sydney and it was great to see him in Australia again last week at the NeuroPower Symposium.

This time I was happy to have more time to discuss with him the possible organizational applications of his brain research...although it should be said that owing to a combined jetlag spanning much of the globe (he newly-arrived from LAX, me from LHR) two popular secondary themes were the relative merits of RedBull vs. Coke and how many cups of coffee one needed during the day before contemplating a few glasses of good Aussie red wine.


Session highlights

Matt and his wife Naomi Eisenberger (who did not attend the Symposium) are co-directors of the Social Cognitive Neuroscience Lab at UCLA. Their pioneering research into applied neuroscience and psychology includes topics such as self-control, self-awareness, emotional regulation, automaticity, social rejection and persuasion.

At day one of the Symposium Matt offered the crowd of 50 people a whirlwind tour of the anatomy and physiology of the brain, including the troubling fact that the exact same part of the brain is often called different things. As we waded through the different nomenclature a plaintive cry went up: "Why can't they just call the parts top/bottom, front/back??"

From there Matt explored the history and relative advantages of different types of brain imaging (TMS, EEG, PET, fMRI) and the different ways we process experiences to form different kinds of memories (explicit/implicit, procedural/working).

Some myths fell by the wayside during this several presentations, including:

• Left brain/Right brain - there aren't nearly as many differences as people may think and most processes combine the two hemispheres in a number of ways
• Male/Female brain - there are virtually no physiological differences between the two, which means that (undeniable) sex differences arise due to other factors
• Mirror neurons don't necessarily work the way that some people think they do
• To speak of "Mind-Body" or "Mind-Brain" connections as if they were two separate things is nonsensical; they are different levels of description for talking about the same thing

Personal and Organizational Applications: the Battle inside your Brain

For me the key takeaway came on day two, as 70 of us learned the brain science behind emotional regulation and the implications for individuals and teams. Matt outlined in great detail the research he's been doing that describes what I call the Battle inside your Brain.

For brevity's sake, and because you'll be reading more about this in future posts, the key point you need to know is this: the self-control centre of the brain is the RVLPFC, or right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, the bit of your brain just inside your right temple. This bit plays a key role in emotional self-regulation, particularly offsetting the emotional intensity associated with limbic pain caused by distress - whether insult, social pain or physical pain.

One of the most effective ways to engage in this emotional regulation is by putting emotions into words. Doing so (somewhat counterintuitively) actually lessens their intensity and makes them more manageable. The thorny bit: it's really hard to do this for ourselves, hence the popularity and effectiveness of various kinds of talk therapy, narrative processes and, I would argue, effective coaching dialogue.

Why does emotional regulation matter? As it happens, there's a lot of truth in the saying, "Control your emotions, or they'll control you!" In this instance, however, "control" is not about denying emotions, pushing them underground or immediately and vehemently expressing them (to the potential distress of those around you).

Rather, it's about striking the right balance.

You've probably heard that anxiety is actually a necessary part of life. Too little and you won't bother to get out of bed in the morning; too much and you simply cannot function effectively - you shut down, freak out or run away.

Neuroscience helps explain this as follows: when we respond to perceived threats, the adrenal system kicks in and heightens brain activity in both the limbic system (emotional: fast, reactive, habitual) and prefrontal cortex or cortical system (cognitive: reasoning, reflective, considerate).

For a time, this heightened activity in both systems will produce the increased mental sharpness that we've all experienced when confronted with a crisis. At a certain point, however, excessive stimulation keeps the limbic system wired while the prefrontal cortex becomes less responsive, literally tightening up and making us less adaptive, worse at creating memories, distracted, detached and prone to tunnel vision. In other words, we are left in raw survival mode and about as sophisticated as a five year-old.

In sum, the Battle inside your Brain is the one in which the cortical system (aided in large part by the RVLPFC) governs and controls the limbic system in order to channel the energy that emotions produce toward getting useful things done.

This is highly encouraging news! Armed with the hard science behind the "soft skills" that help people to manage their own emotional responses (as well as that of others) we can more effectively practice the self-awareness and self-control techniques that ensure maximum productive input with minimum emotional reactivity.


Case Study: tmconsultancy works with Lloyds TSB Bank

As a practical example of the above theory, I also presented a case study at the Symposium, entitled "Developing a thoroughbred team at the Black Horse - Internal Comms at Lloyds TSB Bank"

(Session blurb): Todd will present a consulting and coaching case study on how he applied the NeuroPower framework to help put the new Head of Internal Communications and her team at Lloyds TSB Bank on the road to success. Working with the newly-reorganized team from its inception established a resilient team culture of increased personal accountability and better interpersonal effectiveness. The result: consistently high team productivity and zero team turnover despite a period of dramatic change within the bank and the financial services industry. The case study details the methods and outcomes of tmconsultancy's 18-month engagement with this team at a big-5 UK retail bank in a consulting project delivered through effective face-to-face training and facilitation, combined with a distance coaching program.

You can download the full Lloyds TSB case study here. (As a "live update" to the study, I'm happy to report that at present discussions continue with members of the RBIC team who have sought further consulting support from tmconsultancy for similar projects in the post-merger organization, Lloyds Group.)
.

Inspiration and insights in Oxford - Team Coaching and facilitation

Really happy with today's workshop at the IAF Europe conference in Oxford. My session The Facilitator as Coach was oversubscribed, which made for a cozy group of participants as well as five enthusiastic volunteers for the live coaching session that took place.

I've looked over the feedback I received from over 20 people who were there and am very grateful for the helpful insights and advice...not to mention the affirms! :)

A few highlights:

• Relaxed and warm approach. Love your humour!
• Very good, you allowed the process, as opposed to your agenda, run the session.
• Clear structure and explanations.
• Well demonstrated.
• Good simulation, easy to apply technique, good structure.
• The group [demonstration] worked exceptionally well, balancing between structured, to-do advice and empathy about difficulties faced.
• You are friendly and nice to listen to - very good!
• There was a clear flow of informationadvice between parties, which I am very keen on.
• The role play brought home how the dynamics of the group can work.

For people who wanted to attend the workshop and couldn't make it, here is a link to the handout: Team Coaching - Using the Reflecting Team Coaching format

If you'd like to discuss it further, catch me at the conference tomorrow morning. At 9AM I'll run a workshop (see below) and will be happy to chat with people afterwards before I leave at around noon.

Identify & Deliver on your Personal Brand
Sunday 20th September, 09h00
Room SR3
This session is for facilitators who want to better understand their brand in order to win work (for consultants) and/or influence key internal stakeholders (for employees). What difference does YOUR facilitation make? How are you presenting yourself and your services? And, crucially - are you able to consistently DELIVER on those promise?
Learn what questions to ask yourself, how to communicate your brand and how to align your work with your own personal gifts, talents and abilities in order to ensure consistent delivery.

Look forward to seeing friends new and old tomorrow for a hands-on session full of practical tools and takeaways. Align your pesonal facilitation brand with your own best abilities and you'll be delighting your clients in no time!
.

Highlights from Helsinki workshop on Integral Theory

Summary - This post offers highlights and tips from my recent workshop on practical applications of integral theory. Specifically: effective communication that covers all four quadrants to enhance message clarity and understanding.

Very pleased with the workshop delivered at last weekend's EBTA conference in Helsinki entitled Making Integral Theory practical, or, Wilber in the real world. I particularly appreciated the insightful feedback and input of session participants. Several people also asked for further details on practical applications, which I've included below.

For simplicity there are just two diagrams: the first outlines the high-level focus of attention in each of the four quadrants while the second provides communication tips and content suggestions for each quadrant.

To recap the key points of the workshop:

• While each of us is capable of operating in all four quadrants, over time individuals will develop a preference for one or two of them.
  
• These become our "default" mode of viewing the world and of communicating.

It's therefore useful to:

• know which quadrant is your preferred one (and which may be your "backup")
• realize that you will typically focus on that area by default
• assess whether that focus will effectively convey the point you are trying to make in the circumstance that you're making it
• realize that people whose preference is for a different quadrant may very well have difficulty understanding your perspective, viewing the situation as they do from a quite different point of view
• take the decision which quadrants it may be necessary to include in your communications in order to convey the entirety of your message to the whole of your target audience.

Note that when you speak to groups the larger audience means a greater diversity in quadrant-preferences. To be on the safe side and enhance your communication effectiveness, it's often helpful to cover all four quadrants in your style and content.




Enjoy applying this practical tool and thanks to all the workshop attendees for their participation and generous idea-sharing!

(Incorporating materials by Ken Wilber & Peter Burow.)
.

tmc continues to expand and develop - latest update

And now we'll pause for these brief messages...

I've long advised my clients: in a time of change, even if you've nothing to say, you gotta say that there's nothing to say...

Rather than leave the tmc blog to languish, I am writing this post to let readers know that there will be a short interruption in regular posting over the next few weeks, so that the posts that do appear will do so on a more sporadic basis.

Ultimately, the blog will migrate to the soon-to-be-launched tmconsultancy website though it's not yet clear what will happen to the content already posted on this blog and the subscriber list that it's attracted. When those decisions have been made I will be sure to alert subscribers to any changes that will affect them.

In the meantime, a short reading list
To keep your nimble minds occupied, below are links to some recent stories that I've found to be of interest. Who knows, they may yet become blog posts as well but for the moment I offer them for your edification and amusement.

We learn more from success than failure - which supports a central tenet of solution-focused practice: it's important to emphasize when things go well and what people do right instaead of dwelling on what's wrong/barriers/obstacles/blamestorming, etc.: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/successes-0729.html

Old folks tend to be happier folks (see the original press release with a link to the research article here) - essentially as people grow older their experiences enable them to put things in perspective and de-dramatize things that might otherwise seem to be a Very Big Deal. This is similar to the process of how we accumulate the consolation prize of old age: wisdom. In a previous post (What are you thinking? Choose Wisely!) I talked about how people tend to become the way they consistently behave, or: momentary states can become enduring personality traits.

Finally, a recent paper by authors at the consultancy McKinsey & Co. entitled The Irrational Side of Change Management is, I think, a laudable effort at explaining why rational change management models fail to grasp the inherent complexity of human behavioural interaction. Or to put it plainly: people ain't machines. They don't have "levers" and "drivers" or even pumps and pistons, though they do have hearts and legs, and are happy to engage the latter if the former aren't (but that's another article). The McKinsey piece works because it acknowledges two systems at work in human decision-making...though rather than "irrational vs. rational" let's substitute emotional limbic and rational cortical - the two systems that run in parallel (or sometimes competitively) in the brain.

OK happy reading and more news as it develops!
(NB: You can also follow me on twitter for occasional updates on tmc doings.)
.