Apprentice Final analysis, RWA: Effective Management

Summary: Management is usually defined as "getting work done through people." More to the point, I think it's "the art of getting people to do what you want them to do because they want to do it" (paraphrasing former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower). In this final post of my series reviewing the personalities and behaviours of candidates on The Apprentice Australia I'll discuss how Effective Management cost the losers, decided the winner...and how it could have all ended very differently.


Leadership and Management

Increasingly it seems leadership is outpacing management as the focus of development for those people in an organization whose job it is to "get things done through people." Leadership is seen as sexy, management as necessary but...mundane.

So just what is the difference between the two? Some thoughts:

Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.
~ Warren G. Bennis (scholar, consultant, author)

Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.
~Peter F. Drucker (management consultant, writer)

Management is about coping with complexity. Leadership, by contrast, is about coping with change.
~John P. Kotter (Harvard professor of Organizational Behaviour)

The renowned management theorist Henry Mintzberg at McGill University has lately published a book simply entitled, Managing. In a recent interview on the subject, he commented:

The narcissistic view of leadership [as the primary focus] has taken organisations off the rails. Leadership isn't better than management...I want people to realize that one component of management is leadership but there are lots of other components - information, action, how you involve yourself, how you connect, and all sorts of things.

The grand final of The Apprentice Australia provides a brilliant illustration of his point. In fact I think the most apt comment on management that sums up this week's episode is the following:

Good management is the art of making problems so interesting and their solutions so constructive that everyone wants to get to work and deal with them.
~ Paul Hawken (environmentalist, journalist entrepreneur)

Episode review - the Final Challenge

I've previously written about the Battle inside your Brain in which the emotional (limbic) and the rational (cortical) centres of your brain vie for control over your behaviours and actions.

I'm going to use that same concept to talk about the performance and behaviour of the three finalists, offering an interpretation of how each one's limbic Emotional Reactive style (ER's, also sometimes known as Survival Strategies) interplays and battles with his/her Adult Rational Type (ART).

Gavin's elimination
When asked what motivated him to want to be the apprentice, the pressure got the better of him and Gavin answered from his Emotional Reactive style as Performer/Achiever* by essentially saying how he wanted to succeed, to achieve and to have lots of money.

By contrast, Gavin has previously shown that he is master of the ART* of diplomacy, genuine charm and building relationships with people. Had his ART won the Battle inside his Brain, he might have said something like, "Mr. Bouris, I relish the opportunity to interact with a wide variety of people and help make them a success working together. I want to apply my knowledge of the law and my experience to build a business alongside you, where I'll be learning the things that I don't yet know about the business world from someone who's been there and done it successfully."

Gavin did not answer this way, and so it was obvious when the Boss revealed only two candidates were welcome on the final ride that Gavin would be the one to leave. His focus on his own personal success and achievement was noted and complimented, but he was eliminated because he failed to use his ART and show that he was a team player. Mark Bouris' final comment: "Gavin, we always get the best out of you, but you haven't gotten the best out of your teammates."


Why Heather lost
In the Boardroom Heather has consistently done a poor job presenting herself and giving clear reasons why she should be hired. At the start of this episode she rhymed off a list of adjectives about herself...but did not link them to any benefits. Moreover, many the things she affirmed were empty words that clearly don't reflect her actual performance to date.

I think this shows a pronounced lack of self-awareness. Her response to critical feedback (both in the past and later on in this episode) has not indicated a willingness to take the lesson; it's been self-justifying, flustered, defensive. These are both indicators of her Emotional Reactive style, the Perfectionist*. Faced with stressors and threats to her self-image that her limbic brain literally reads as life-or-death, Heather's Survival Strategy is to always be in control, always be right.

It wasn't always like this. Early days, Heather made frequent reference to ethics and integrity. At her best, then, her facility with the ART* of integrity, high standards and setting a clear course of action ought to have encouraged straight dealing in a team that's following a clear vision. Instead, victory in the Battle inside her Brain went too often to Heather's Perfectionist ER.

Context: granted, during this challenge Heather had to manage a team of the three most recent departees from the show (Sabrina, Mary-Anne and Gavin); granted, Sabrina had neither forgotten nor forgiven her previous differences with Heather, while Mary-Anne was true to type and swift to condemn Heather's decisions. The fact remains that neither Sabrina nor Mary-Anne had such bad blood towards Morello. That animosity had to have come from somewhere.

We got a reminder early in this task of where that animosity might have come from, as Heather reverted to a take-charge-and-keep-control style. As a result the atmosphere in Team Eventus was rancorous from the very start and only worsened as Heather progressively alienated her team over the course of the task. Despite this, in the Boardroom Heather claimed that in this task she had "let go of that stranglehold of control" that she'd previously insisted upon. I think her Perfectionist ER had her in such a grip, had made her so un-self-aware, that she genuinely believed that was the case.

The key moment of insight came when Heather said, "this task is about me winning the job as Apprentice." At that point it was clear to me that she would lose. She had misunderstood the nature of the task - the outcome of the task was the winner would become the apprentice, but the task itself was about managing a team of people to deliver an outcome - a task that she had failed virtually from the outset.

Heather's primary focus of being in control and being right was also in evidence when she several times expressed her motivation: "I will prove a lot of people wrong," and "I have so much to prove."

And so in the end we did see her passion, determination and desire to win. Her personal performance was impressive. As Brad Seymour commented, "she was an absolute machine - across about fourteen different tasks all at once!" He also observed: "a little more trust wouldn't have gone amiss." The verdict: Heather is a brilliant performer but not a team player and was ultimately unable to manage others. Mark Bouris' final analysis:

You get the job done, you're not out there for a popularity contest...but whilst you might get the job done, sometimes you leave a little bit of carnage behind, there's some hurt and...you might get the job done this time and in this challange, but in my game you've got to show up again the next day and the next day - everybody's got to work together.

Noting her lack of self-awareness and self-management, Mark Bouris asked her point-blank: "is it possible during the task that, in the moment you don't read it?" Meaning: you don't see the effect you're having on others, the chaos and carnage that's resulting? Asked further: "could you do what Morello does, sit down and hash it through with everyone?" Heather said, "Absolutely."

Yet she missed noticing the need to do it, missed noticing the effect it was having in the team she was meant to be managing, missed the point of the task itself...and for all these things she was judged as not up to the role of National Business Development manager - which I think was the right call.

Heather's only chance to win would have been to engage more in her ART of engaging others to rally behind a cause and lay out clearly the task at hand; instead her merciless Perfectionist ER caused her to do it all herself and alienate not only her team but The Boss as well.

Why Morello won
In his own words, "I was myself from week 1 to week 10." True to form, Morello employed his ART*, showing himself once again to be a Practical Problem Solver with a Democratic leadership style. He was happy to delegate responsibility to others, his teammates held him in high esteem and were pulling for his success, resulting in great team spirit and camaraderie.

Morello deftly managed the high-energy and strong-willed Carmen by matching her energy levels and steering her drive in positive, productive activity. He'd made good mates of Sam and Lynton from living in the Apprentice house together and while he sought their input, his was the ultimate say as project lead.

Where it nearly fell down for Morello was in moments of excitement and high energy, when his Emotional Reactive style of Adventurer/Fun-seeker got the better of him. When the Battle in his Brain tipped in favour of limbic response, he was constantly throwing out new/ bigger/better/more ideas for how things could be a show, a lot of fun, entertaining for all involved! In the Boardroom assessment he got his knuckles rapped for engaging in too much theatre and having just too many stories/themes/ideas going at the same time. Learning how to "know when to say when" will be useful discipline for this new Apprentice.


RWA - Effective Management

Morello succeeded because he was able to take his team through the Six Steps of Effective Management:

1. "Lay down the law." - It would seem that he clarified the roles, goals and expectations so that each person's individual efforts are contributing to the group objectives and goals. Doing this at the outset provides an underlying source of enduring continuity in the face of transition, change and even crisis periods to come.
   
   
2. "Talk it through with them." - by encouraging expression, his team members had the chance to say what they think and feel. Free expression like this may well cause conflict. That's normal and necessary. What is required is an agreed way to deal constructively with such conflict. As we've seen too often on other Apprentice tasks, unexpressed emotional reactions do not go away but instead go underground to fester and bubble up in unproductive ways at inopportune moments.
   
   
3. "We're going to make this big!" - With the emotional energy released in the previous step now ready to be put to practical use, this step answers the question "what's in it for me?" to tap into the passion and drive of each team member. This step is about getting things done, the achievement of aspirations.
   
   
4. "Guys let's get together on this" - The previous step unleashed each person's self-interested passion and drive for results. Now is the time to ensure there is a personal connection so that internal competition does not tear the team apart. Morello's personality suggests a sense of personal commitment to build authentic relationships between team members, who as we saw this week gladly go the extra mile for him...and for each other.
   
   
5. "Getting it done." - This step is about the actual step-by-step execution of the plans, adjusting resources, ensuring good information flow and adjusting on-the-fly to take advantage of opportunities as they arise.
   
   
6. "Here's the positive outcome." - Working with Morello you have no doubt that at the end of the task there's going to be celebration, a chance to talk about what people did well and highlighting contributions...all the kinds of things that look at the long term and serve to build lasting relationships.
   

By covering all six of these steps Morello unified his team with Effective Management. He was able to get his team members to do what he wanted them to do - because they wanted to do it and wanted him to win - and in the end he came out on top.

To find out more from tmc about the six steps of Effective Management and how to apply them in your own management style, contact me directly.


Your thoughts & opinions

I hope you've enjoyed this series of posts reviewing The Apprentice Australia. In this series I have enjoyed sharing my views on the candidates' personalities and behaviours, and sharing some of the tools/models that I use in my consultancy work to provide you with Real-World Applications.

Now the series is over, I'd love to hear your comments about the show, these posts, your experiences at work, or any other thoughts you'd like to share. Just click on Comments and you're ready to write!



*I will post an overview of the 9 Emotional Reactive ER styles in the near future, along with the 8 Adult Rational Types (ARTs). Watch this space!



Related previous posts:
Analysis of episode 1, RWA: Foundation & Force
Preview of episode 2, RWA: Conflict Management
Apprentice week 2 analysis, RWA: Giving/Receiving Feedback using Head & Heart
Apprentice week 3 analysis, RWAs: Team Leadership and Setting a Team Culture
Apprentice week 4 analysis, RWA: Coaching for high performance
Apprentice week 5 analysis, RWA: "The Relationship is the Customer"
Apprentice week 6 analysis, RWA: The FIT model
Apprentice week 7 analysis, RWA: Authentic Emotional Intelligence
Apprentice episode 8 preview: double trouble
Apprentice week 8 analysis, RWA: Effective Collaboration

Photo credit: Apprentice trio, Andrew Morello.
.

Apprentice week 8 analysis, RWA: Effective Collaboration

Summary: We know collaboration often brings greater benefits than competing or working alone. So how come we don't do it more often? The answer is simple: fear. This post reviews the combined episodes 8/9 of The Apprentice Australia and offers a Real-World Application (RWA) in how to overcome fearful states and promote effective collaboration.


Review of episodes 8 & 9
Taking both episodes together, we saw the remaining candidates exhibit many of their habitual behaviour patterns - with effects both good and ill.

Sabrina was fired in the first half of the episode for her poor conflict management ability and for the cardinal sin of fence-sitting. Faced with Mary-Anne and Heather's respective versions of self-assertion and the sparks that resulted, Sabrina seemed to just step back and keep herself out of the fray. Sabrina called them a pair of "bossy-boots" and stated that she found Heather "forceful" (with strong negative connotation) yet while the clear conflict and tension between her teammates had a negative effect on performance, she did nothing. Her response in the Boardroom on the conflict was: "I'm in the middle." To which Mark Bouris replied, "That's not a good place to be" and Sabrina exclaimed, "Oh!" in a small voice, unaware that her withdrawal and conflict avoidance would be her downfall.

This was a missed opportunity for her to engage with the other two authentically, perhaps to admit that she frankly didn't know what to do but that something needed to be done to address the conflict. It's hard to say what the result would have been, but often an honest admission and willingness to name the elephant in the room is enough to get people thinking differently. That Sabrina felt out of her depth was clear when in the Boardroom she added: "I think it takes character to step up and admit that you are not qualified to do something." She's right, and here I think we finally got a glimpse of the authentic Sabrina...but the timing was tragically too late and she paid the price.

Mary-Anne was this week's second departure, fired for a lack of collaboration and "mateship" with Morello on the Shopping Channel challenge. Having fair bowled Morello over to be Project Leader, her style as leader demonstrated poor judgement in product choice for him to sell and in failing to do for him as he had done for her: support a team member in a moment of difficulty.

Mary-Anne's strong focus on competence has in past weeks prompted her to put her hand up and take reponsibility straightaway when things have gone wrong (particularly on the Mudgee Pub Night challenge). This is to her credit, an example of her Pacesetting leadership style at work, with an expectation of competence and very high standards for performance. Where it falls down for her was shown this week, as Morello fell afoul of those same high standards by making a simple mistake, and was punished with laughter, isolation and embarrassment. For her intolerance, she got fired.

Heather was very assertive about how to do the band makeover in the first challenge in the all-girls team, then not assertive enough about how to run the teleprompting when paired with Gavin on second challenge, which invites consideration of just how well she works with female colleagues (from my recollection, most of her head-butting in past episodes has been in all- or majority-female teams). As I'd said in the week 8 preview, her take-charge, my-way-or-the-highway style produced conflict, which she showed she still has to learn how to manage. In the first challenge, having appointing herself the lead for two of the tasks, Heather once again overextended herself: she initiated a last-minute remix of the band's demo tape (the quality of which came in for harsh criticism by the music industry execs) and running dangerously behind schedule with the band's styling appointment.

Meanwhile in the Boardroom it took Heather a long time to back herself on the subject of her conflict with Mary-Anne. She practically needed to receive permission from Mark Bouris before stating her opinion on the matter. Based on the music execs' reaction to her presentation, I think she gets easily triggered by hearing advice and feedback (however constructive) and responds emotionally by trying to explain herself. In the final episode I think she'll place second; what costs her the victory will be inflexibly expecting things to be done her way, lack of awareness of her effect on others, and the combination of timidity at making a case for her value-add/reactivity towards advice that is actually meant to help her to develop and grow.

I looked to Gavin for some real changes this week and to my delight we were treated to a very different side of him in both of this week's challenges. After my plea last week for him let people in and be more genuine, I think he has shown us some authenticity. As with all new behaviours, it doubtless felt pretty strange for him and from the outside it looked a bit awkward, but full credit to him for stepping outside his comfort zone. The question for him in the final will be whether the pressure and the presence of previously-fired candidates will rekindle the old interpersonal dynamics and cause him to revert to game-playing. Even if he continues with his new-found authentic behaviour, it may be too little, too late to win the trust of the Boss and win the competition. A respectable third place and some invaluable and insightful life lessons will be his reward.

Throughout this competition it's been easy to think of Morello as the kind of guy you could easily work with: friendly, ethical, creative, practical and a cool head under pressure. Sure he's really high-energy and (as Gavin quipped this week) always needs to be the centre of attention, but for a guy his age those are unsurprising and not insurmountable traits. More to the point, we haven't seen from him either the shameless ego-tripping or the egoless "shrinking violet" behaviour that's been the downfall of other candidates.

To quote the saying again, people are most often hired on experience, fired on personality. I think Morello will be Australia's first Apprentice in what could be a case of someone hired for their personality in order to develop the needed experience. If so, well done to him for his perseverance and to his Boss for making a choice that's most likely to reap great developmental and performance results for them both.


Why it's so Hard to Collaborate: Three Kinds of Personal Fear

"We know the good...but do not do it."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche (attributed)

Throughout The Apprentice Australia series we've seen so-called "teams" tearing themselves apart during the challenges and particularly in the Boardroom. I've previously characterized this as a little more than a corporate dogfight pit.

In a recent post, Charles H. Green talked about Why it's so hard to collaborate, concluding that personal fear undermines collaboration. When you think about it, this makes sense and in this way The Apprentice rings true: with a format designed to foster infighting and trigger candidates into fearful, limbic responses, it reminds us in the audience of behaviour we've all experienced before in organizational setting. With this twinge of recognition (and the safe distance of impersonally watching it happen to someone else) the program hooks its viewers.

I want to suggest there are three main kinds of fear at work here:

1. Knowledge is power - triggered by strong feelings and emotions, intrusive/demanding people or situations, being surprised, broken confidences, dishonesty, out-of-control situations, and feeling inadequate or powerless, one fear response is, "I'll keep all the cards to myself, then I'll be the expert and everyone will have to rely on me." An example of this behaviour in the series was Lynton - nonemotional, positioning himself as the expert and being unwilling to collaborate with others. There were moments when Carmen displayed this behaviour ("I'm in it for me," power's all that matters, no team focus) and Mary-Anne too, for example when she was hard on herself for lacking the knowledge she thought she needed and displayed intolerance and impatience toward Sabrina and Morello when she thought they were incompetent.
   
   
2. Distrustful/What if...? - triggered by feeling helpless, out of control, in danger or potential harm, subject to pressure, and/or experiencing a lack of commitment, this second fear response is to constantly ask oneself "What if this happens? What if that happens?" while trying to keep oneself safe from entanglements or commitments - which looks from the outside like hanging back, being guarded and disconnected from others. We saw this behaviour primarily from Blake, totally hanging back and seeming noncommittal about most tasks, getting fired in the end because he was unable or unwilling to come forward. As discussed last week, Gavin and Sabrina have also at times hidden their genuine selves behind masks and game-playing.
   
   
3. Difficult/painful situations - triggered by frustrations, restraints, limitations, painful situations or feelings, boredom or routine, feeling dismissed, not taken seriously or unjustly criticized, this fear response seeks to avoid the situation entirely by shifting focus or substituting some other topic. Heather has demonstrated this by consistently avoiding feedback, by being unaware to come to grips with the negative effect her assertive (forceful) behaviour has on others and being unable to deal constructively with conflict. Similarly, Morello's laughing/joking personable style has the benefit of helping him avoid hardship, steering clear of tough situations.
   

Real-World Application (RWA): Effective collaboration

Charles Green's piece on collaboration ends with the following observation:

There are two simple approaches to lowering fear. One is to mitigate risk. The other is to stop being so fearful. The first one is getting most of the press; we need more of the second. [emphasis added]

To address each of the three most common fear reactions listed above, here are a few pointers:

1. Offer well-researched and detailed content, specific and fact-based; strive to reduce the emotional charge of content and depersonalize/be objective; conduct meetings and make announcements in appropriate, agreed-upon venues; make sure you include an open Q&A session for people to request clarification and details.
   
   
2. Build rapport before moving into content, then use clear statements of goals and intent with concrete specifics; give reassurance about the exact magnitude of problem to help people avoid catastrophizing/assuming the worst; create opportunities for people to play devil's advocate and challenge authority (don't dismiss this as "resistance" because there's often useful information to be gained from differing perspectives); communicate the underlying motives and reasons for changes; provide assurances of support and ongoing communication; where possible offer people options from which to choose; give suggestions early on to help people foresee positive outcomes.
   
   
3. Offer executive summaries and "quick overviews"; allow for expression of people's creative input (even if not strictly-speaking on track with the subject matter at hand); affirm people's competence and use a strengths-based approach to any training/developmental requirements; offer a variety of communication modes/channels (fast-paced, visual, interactive); validate people's experiences and perspectives; don't "pull rank" and try to enforce a change through command-and-control.
   

Building Bridges of Collaboration

People in organizations must continually deal with change. As a leader/manager, your challenge is two-fold: to face your own feelings and reactions to change and then to effectively lead your team through their own reactions (fear, anger, etc.)...and all this while doing your "day job" and delivering the tangible results that you're paid to make happen.

Managing fear and promoting collaboration requires you to know what to say and how to say it. When leaders add this to their already long list of tasks, it can seem a bit overwhelming.

That's where tmc can help.

As you build the bridge that will take you and your team from where you are to where you need to be, tmc can act as an invaluable support. You'll gain peace of mind knowing that structures and processes are in place to address the people issues associated with your change project. With this assurance, you'll be free to concentrate on delivering the work required of you, benefitting from the high performance and increased productivity that comes from a positive team environment.

To find out more contact me directly. We can have a conversation to explore your particular situation and context, helping you achieve clarity on where you are, where you need to be, and how to build the bridges that will get you there.


Note: For those of you outside Australia who wish to view the episodes of The Apprentice Australia that I'm discussing in this series of posts, you can find them on YouTube here. Meanwhile if you're in Australia you can see not only the episodes to date but also post-episode video diaries on the Nine website here.


Related previous posts:
Analysis of episode 1, RWA: Foundation & Force
Preview of episode 2, RWA: Conflict Management
Apprentice week 2 analysis, RWA: Giving/Receiving Feedback using Head & Heart
Apprentice week 3 analysis, RWAs: Team Leadership and Setting a Team Culture
Apprentice week 4 analysis, RWA: Coaching for high performance
Apprentice week 5 analysis, RWA: "The Relationship is the Customer"
Apprentice week 6 analysis, RWA: The FIT model
Apprentice week 7 analysis, RWA: Authentic Emotional Intelligence
Apprentice episode 8 preview: double trouble


Photo credit: Bridge

Story conference: habits, corporate culture & stories for change

Summary: An article based on content presented at the Celebrating Story conference held last week in Melbourne, Australia. The post talks about how individual habits form, how organizational habits are the corporate culture or "the way we do things around here" and how, during culture change projects, stories can be used to mediate the tension between individual survival responses and participation in the larger (organizational) group.
NB: This post is an abridged version of an article on transformational culture change in organizations due to be available later this month - to request a copy of the article upon its publication, email the author.

Habits are handy

Remember when you first learned how to drive a car or ride a bike?

In the beginning it took a whole lot of conscious, focused attention to learn this new task. Quite soon, though, the movements needed for that activity became more or less automatic. So much so, that sometimes you (like most people) will drive somewhere you've been to many times before and, upon arrival, have no recollection at all of having made the trip.

Similarly, if you try to explain in words to someone how to ride a bike, it's a really hard thing to do. Your long repetition of bike-riding behaviour has turned it into a habit and actually put it outside your conscious awareness, into an automatic set of movements.

The mechanics behind this process work like this. When you first sat astride that bike or buckled up in the driver's seat of a car you engaged in some pretty serious and focused attention, so as not to either scuff your knees or wrap your dad's car around a tree. At times like this, you're consciously engaging your cortical brain - that's the part which engages in complex tasks by weighing different options, considering evidence and laying down the new neural pathways required for learning and skill acquisition.

This is the "heavy-lifting" part of your brain; a processing powerhouse, the possession of which separates we humans from other species. It's hugely expensive to operate in caloric energy terms: it takes about 25-30% of the body's available energy to engage in sustained cognitive activity, like that required to learn a new complex task. That's why after a long period of intense concentration like studying for a test you're exhausted. Even though you were not very physically active, you probably demolished a big meal soon after and had a nice long sleep.

In order to manage your body's resources most efficiently the brain automates as many cognitive activities as possible. New learning is swiftly turned into automatic patterns of behaviour. They become habits and, as you have probably experienced, they can be very tricky things to try to change. As they become simply "the way you do things," they drop out of your conscious awareness. You find you have "imperfect introspective access" to your habits, making them hard to shift and a very powerful force for the maintenance of the status quo.


Vive la différence

Eating the same evening meal day in, day out can be comforting habit. It's efficient, no thought is required and it probably saves time and effort that you can expend on other things.

However, it also means you'll miss other experiences and culinary opportunities. It leaves you exposed if the ingredients for your favourite meal are suddenly unavailable. Your body may rebel against this monotony and develop an intolerance for some of the foods. The point is: the efficiencies that habits can bring can also stand in the way of the flexibility needed to adapt to internal and outside changes.


Organizational habits: Corporate Culture

A similar process happens on a wider scale in organizations. They can be said to have "habits" too, ones that, taken together, form the corporate culture - a concept that is most often described simply as "the way we do things around here". Corporate culture can therefore also be a powerful force for the maintenance of the status quo and, as with the dinner example above, most of the time that's OK.

However for an organization to be flexibly adaptable (e.g. for the organization to move from where it is now to where it needs to be in order to deliver on its strategic goals) many of the habitual patterns wrapped up in the corporate culture will need to change as well.

Now mention “corporate culture” to people in an organization and most will return a blank look, an uncertain smile, or a tentative nod. Having a conversation about culture is a bit like trying to talk to a fish about water - the awareness level is just not very high, because everyone is so completely immersed in the culture.

Any organizational change initiative will very quickly run smack into habitual, automatic patterns of behaviour. The way that people are invited to take part in that change process will therefore determine from the very start how successful the shift will be, and what results will be achieved as the new strategy is executed.


Change can unbalance "The Battle inside your Brain"

Since the habits of corporate culture are powerful forces to maintain the status quo, you need equally powerful countervailing efforts to shift these habits. The thorny question is: will making a powerful case for culture change encourage people to rationally evaluate new ways of operating using their cortical brain networks, or will it represent a source of disruption, insecurity and distress that's seen as a threat and triggers a limbic survival response in each individual?

The way that a change initiative is launched and managed will determine how well you set people up to be on the productive side of The Battle inside their Brain.

Remember that the limbic emotional brain network is where you see the classic knee-jerk reaction - act first, then consider - as it makes decisions first, then seeks justification (or rationalization) for the decision after the fact.

Meanwhile the cortical rational brain network is built to weighing options and alternatives, gathering data and information and then make decisions based on careful analysis and thoughtful debate - consider first, then act. It's in this latter part of the brain that our better nature and true talents as functional adults is located. During a change, you want people to be spending lots of time there and as little time as possible in their limbic survival mode.

What's tricky is that the limbic survival reaction produces powerful emotions and reacts faster than the cortical rational brain. Here's why.


Survival strategies and the Individual

When any change happens in their environment, people will have an immediate response at a very basic level of the brain, the limbic system.

This is a survival response and one that is deeply hardwired - essentially it provides the motivation to focus your attention and assess the situation that you now face in terms of what threats may be present and whether there's action that needs to be taken to ensure your survival.

These survival responses are made up of something that you've no doubt heard of before: the "3 F's" of fight-flight-freeze response.

The limbic system is much older in evolutionary terms than the larger cortical brain, which means that these emotionally-fuelled fight-flight-freeze reactions happen even before we’re consciously aware of them. Now, these reactions have to be fast or they wouldn't be of much use to keep you alive in threatening situations where instant action is required.

The price you pay for the limbic system's speed is that it bypasses the rational cortical brain. Because your rational cortical brain is the part which enables you to consider evidence, weigh alternatives and make well-thought-through decisions, it means that pre-cortical, unconscious reactions can produce some really dumb decisions. Also because the limbic system is a critical part of our age-old, hardwired survival mechanism there's no way to "turn it off". That is to say, you can't NOT have a reaction to things.

The question is, what you do with the emotional energy that results.

Managing this energy requires that people know their most frequent survival strategy: fight-flight-freeze. To use less provocative terms, think of them as gears that you switch depending on whether you need to go forward, reverse, or just be in neutral.

• Forward (fight) is all about action, but it can't be your only survival mode; faced with something bigger and toothier than we are, it makes sense to have other reactions to fall back on.
• Reverse gear (flight) is the withdrawal mode, where you disengage to observe the surroundings for signs of danger and decide whether to re-engage or flee still further.
• Neutral (freeze) in this context is the in-between mode, staying put and being mostly non-threatening and compliant.

These reactions are reactive, not thoughtful. Fighters will unthinkingly attack a change initiative, Fleers will unthinkingly withdraw either mentally or sometimes even physically from the environment, while Freezers will unthinkingly agree and be compliant, but not have any capacity for real engagement with the change.

People in survival mode are in a emotionally high-strung state of limbic lock-down. They will be barely functional as rational adult individuals and even less inclined to participate in groups. Since each person's limbic behaviour tends to trigger a limbic response in others, teams devolve into an animalistic battle of each-against-all.

As each person's limbic response ricochets and intensifies that of others, the group's level of emotional reactivity rises and other team members come to be viewed one of two ways: as competition or food. In such a setting change becomes impossible and people long for the safety and familiarity of habitual patterns - hence why so often a few months after a change is introduced, people revert back to pre-change behaviour patterns.


We live in tribes and tell stories

This may all sound quite grim, a bit like an organizational Lord of the Flies (a.k.a. The Apprentice TV series). Thankfully, two characteristics of human beings offer a way to mediate this state of high tension between individual survival and group participation: 1) we are inherently social animals and 2) we are meaning-making machines.

1) Our social brains. There's something called the default mode network in the brain, which is "what the brain does when it is doing nothing in particular" and involves primarily two areas of the brain.

Researchers don’t agree on all the components of the default network, but consensus is growing that it has two major hubs: the posterior cingulate cortex, or PCC, with the precuneus, and the medial prefrontal cortex. The functions ascribed to those two areas may give clues to what the default network is good for. The medial prefrontal cortex is involved in imagining, thinking about yourself and “theory of mind,” which encompasses the ability to figure out what others think, feel or believe and to recognize that other people have different thoughts, feelings and beliefs from you. The precuneus and PCC are involved in pulling personal memories from the brain’s archives, visualizing yourself doing various activities and describing yourself. [...] Together, these hubs give you a sense of who you are. Their prominence in the network has led some researchers to propose that the function of the default mode is to allow you to internally explore the world and your place in it, so you can plot future actions, including contingency plans for various scenarios you might encounter.*

So it seems that when you're not thinking of anything else, you're thinking about yourself - as defined by your social relationship with others. In other words: as defined through interactions with the group.

2) Stories. A good deal of research has confirmed the human predilection to make characters and narratives out of whatever we see in the world around us. Put simply, we are meaning-making machines. In keeping with the above, it's also interesting to note the role that stories play to promote social cohesion among groups and serve as a valuable method for passing on information. Moreover, stories and narratives play a key role in persuasion: people accept ideas more readily when their minds are in story mode as opposed to when they are in an analytical mind-set.** (Hat-tip Shawn for this article.)


Practical takeaways

God turns you from one feeling to another
And teaches you by means of opposites
So that you will have two wings to fly
Not one. ~ Rumi

Illustration credit: Simon Kneebone, Cartoonist & Illustrator


Our default mode is to define our selves in social terms through relation to others and we tell ourselves stories to make sense of the world around us. We're naturally tribal, storytelling creatures. In this tension of opposites, between the individual's concern for survival and his/her desire to belong to a group, there can be found both the high energy of the emotional limbic survival response and the amazing human capacity for complex thought and meaning-making.

From the very start of a change process, leaders need to use stories and encourage people to channel their emotions into productive behaviours. This can be successfully done in two practical ways:

1. Help individuals to recognize and manage their own limbic emotional reactivity, through awareness of the nine predictable limbic types (see below, Workshop).
2. Engage the group with story, with a narrative journey of change that sets the context, lays out the strategy, invites participation, shows the benefits, engages at an emotional level, outlines the detailed plan, and finally looks forward to positive future state (see below, Consultancy).
   

Are you a slave to your emotions or is your emotional energy serving you?

Workshop: The 9 Survival Strategies - which ones you use and how to put them to work for you (as presented at Melcrum's Strategic Comms conference Sydney, and used by Deutsche Bank, Lloyds TSB Bank, AMP, and other organizations in Australia and the UK).

What's the story of your next organizational culture change project?

Consultancy: To learn more about how tmc helps leaders to effectively engage their teams through times of change, email Todd.



References:
Peter Burow. "The Art & Science of Transformational Leadership."
**Jeremy Hsu. "The Secrets of Storytelling: Why We Love a Good Yarn - Our love for telling tales reveals the workings of the mind," Scientific American Mind, August/September 2008, 46-51.
M.D. Lieberman, D. Schreiber & K.N. Ochsner. "Is Political Cognition like riding a bicycle? How cognitive neuroscience can inform research on political thinking," Political Psychology, 24(4) 2003, 681-704.
*Tina Hesman Saey, "You are who you are by default," Science News, 176(2) July 18th 2009, 16.
.

Apprentice week 2 analysis, RWA: Giving/Receiving Feedback using Head & Heart

Summary: This post reviews episode 2 of The Apprentice Australia and offers Real-World Applications (RWAs) on how to give and receive feedback.

Previous related posts:
Analysis of episode 1, RWA: Foundation & Force
Preview of episode 2, RWA: Conflict Management

Analysis of week two

TEAM EVENTUS (winning team)

What was shown of the behaviour the all-female team members demonstrated a team divided... dare I say: catty?

Carmen's comments about team leader Sabrina (whom she had invited into the Boardroom with her last week for potential elimination) were critical and caustic, in keeping with Carmen's central theme of revenge for perceived betrayal. Watch for more fireworks from Carmen's corner as it seems she has not yet learned how to channel her abundant energy into more productive behaviour.

Heather joined in the fray early this week when her desire to use her experience in advertising as team leader was thwarted by Sabrina thrusting herself forward for the role. Heather did not contest Sabrina's suggestion but then seemed inwardly resentful throughout the task as a result - a function of not wanting to deal with a difficult or potentially painful situation. When Heather did apply her experience to the project, we saw another side of her: a perfectionist pursuit of what is right according to her expertise/rules. Working with the graphic designer she repeatedly said, "no that's not it, that's not right" and worked literally up to the last minute on fine-tuning and adjustments - which could have led to disaster. Despite this long time commitment, Heather looked stressed and anxious during the pitch, most probably out of fear that it still wasn't right. In the weeks to come a developmental goal for Heather will be to present her ideas assertively while also making room for other perspectives, adopting a position of curiosity rather than a compulsive quest for what is right according to her own standards.

Sabrina wasted no time in putting herself forward to shine this week - and then manifestly failed to do so. Using her characterisitc forcefulness she effectively nominated and acclaimed herself team leader at the outset (team approval at that point being really just a formality in her mind). In the event, not much was shown of her leadership or contribution to the project aside from her singing voice on the jingle and her delivery of a negative and critical assessment of Heather's design efforts. Worse, she nearly blew what to that point had been a strong team pitch to the Ogilvy execs by getting defensive during the Q&A and arguing with their feedback. Incredibly, she repeated this blunder in the Boardroom by cutting across and attempting to correct Diane Stone's report on Eventus' performance. It's possible that Sabrina talks a good game and fronts herself as being capable of much more than she can actually deliver. In short, she's a fraud and at a certain level she knows it. Her persona is therefore built on tenuous foundations and she will be on perpetual high alert for any threat to its maintenance...which makes her incredibly resistant to feedback and fearful of any assessment of her by others. Her development task remains the same: cultivate modesty and objectivity, greater awareness of others through opening herself to feedback, and learning to deliver feedback to others in a more constructive way.

TEAM PINNACLE (losing team)

Lynton's elimination this week stemmed largely from his over-reliance on data, information and logical, step-by-step process. In his exit interview he seems not to have learned the lesson: he states there is not a lot he would have done differently, says they made the best possible use of the tools and information available, but failed to talk about how he would correct the two major shortfalls: his failure to remember the clients' names(!) and the lack of engagement and energy in his "wooden" presentation to Ogilvy. It's likely that he thought his way was the best way, so despite claiming to have a "dream team" to work with, he insisted on delivering the pitch on his own. In the Boardroom his detached, non-emotional mask began to crack as he continually pursed his lips - a blatant microexpression that may have indicated anger/annoyance, disapproval/disgust, or impatience at not being able to speak, but in any event clearly demonstrated outwardly the emotional distress that he was unwilling to actually put into words.

Jon, meanwhile, was this week's target of Mr Bouris' war on "shrinking violet" behaviour and "fence-sitters" - which seems to be code for everyone who's not making a big noise about their own contribution. I'd agree that Jon seems ambivalent about his role and was too easily brushed aside by Gavin during the interviews - all the more reason for him to insist that some groundwork be set before tasks are undertaken so there's greater role clarity and even debate about how to proceed, before proceeding. So, more Foundation before the Force.

Sam meanwhile got positively manic and made good use of his creative side during the brainstorming session - which is, after all, what a brainstorming session is meant to be about - but then got some stick for being unfocussed. At present there is simultaneously a lot of goodwill towards him and doubts about his youth. That said, he stuck his hand up and took responsibility for an idea in the Boardroom, which earned him kudos from Mr Bouris since everyone else on Team Pinnacle was in prevarication/plausible deniability mode. In the weeks to come Sam needs to keep on being himself and continue to earn the respect of his team members by engaging with them in an energetic, authentic way - in other words, with Heart.


Real-World Application (RWA) #1: Head and Heart

Lynton and Sam offer good examples this week of the contrast between Head and Heart.

HEAD is about data, tasks and learning. It looks like this: get clear on the step-by-step actions, make resources available, allocate them efficiently and leverage them to move forward. Ensure good information flow, analyze data for patterns to apply and exploit. It's logical, procedural, rational and non-emotional.






HEART is about empathy, inclusion and relationships, creating a personal connection so that internal competition does not tear the team apart. Being smart about connecting with the team helps foster a sense of belonging for each team member. People don't work for companies or money - they work for people. As team leader, offering a sense of personal commitment will build authentic relationships between team members, who gladly go the extra mile for you...and for each other.

There's an old saying: "People don't care what you know, until they know that you care." With Sam it seems pretty clear that what you see is what you get - to use the phrase, he wears his Heart on his sleeve for all to see. On the other hand, Lynton's Head-strong efforts to dazzle with his marketing know-how and to put himself forward as the expert presenter during the pitch actually alienated him from team members. It also blinded him to the fact that a joint presentation would have been more compelling because it would draw on the diverse strengths of the team members, including Jon's input from his role as parent, Gavin's charm and easy way with people, Sam's energetic enthusiasm and Andrew's warmth and engagement.

Using only his Head and not his Heart, Lynton failed to engage either his team or the client, and paid the price. His exit interview shows that this lesson hasn't sunk in. Logically, his Head-based behaviour still makes rational sense to him. As yet, he hasn't developed the Heart-insight to understand where things went wrong. Opening himself to emotional and Heart-style engagement with others will therefore be his developmental task in his post-Apprentice career.

Of course both Head and Heart are necessary elements and each is an effective counterbalance to the other. We can get so focused on results that the human dimension, that of emotions and relationships, gets forgotten. Yet it is the central task of leadership to successfuly reincorporate exactly that dimension to to engage people in getting things done.

What does your team or organization do to ensure a good mix of both Head and Heart in decision-making, activities and interactions?

An excellent tool for reincorporating the human dimension, the Heart in an organization, is by enabling people to communicate more effectively by giving and receiving feedback.

Real-World Application (RWA) #2: Giving & Receiving Feedback

Giving feedback: The Affirm
This week Sabrina demonstrated the kind of feedback that many managers give: pointing out what's wrong, challenging decisions with a lot of "why" questions and generally putting the person at the receiving end on the back foot. This highly critical approach focused on the negatives will be interpreted by many people as a threat - and drive them into their limbic, emotionally reactive survival mode.

Rather than offering negative, destructive feedback, there's a tool that helps you to give constructive feedback aimed at a collaborative and mutually-agreeable outcome. Working on the basis that people work better when they are appreciated, a good approach is to Affirm the things you notice that are going well and the resources, skills, talents and attributes that a person has demonstrated.

At first this might seem like a pointless waste of time, just soft-stuff, hand-holding and not getting the point across. Or like those empty compliments that some managers lavish indiscriminately on team member - a load of sickly-sweet, nonspecific and insincere praise. But the Affirm is something else.

Good Affirms are:
Authentic and sincere
Specific and detailed
Relevant to the context

And...they feel really good both to the giver's brain (since it's linked to compassion) and the receiver's brain, since they help position the receiver to win the Battle inside their Brain. Good Affirms calm the knee-jerk, emotionally reactive limbic brain and invite the attention and involvement of the rational cortical brain, where the mental heavy-lifting takes place and whence people produce their most useful behaviour and activity. (Learn more here.)

Receiving feedback: Active Listening

Even if you're not being Affirmed, you will still need to receive feedback from others in order to learn, develop and grow. Scottish poet Robbie Burns wrote, "O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us." And he's right, we gain invaluable insight from the outside perspective that can only come from other people.

Assuming you've won the Battle inside your Brain and quieted the noise of your emotional reactivity, here are some good Active Listening habits to cultivate:

• Reassure/encourage - convey genuine interest, show you're paying attention, keep the person talking by occasionally saying: "I see..." "Yes..." "Say more about that..."
  
• Reflect/paraphrase - convey understanding by restating what the person has said, not necessarily word-for-word but as you've heard and understood it, sometimes taking a guess at the underlying feelings: "You feel that..." "I can imagine you would feel angry that"
  
• Restate/clarify - check that you have understood the speaker's intended message (NB: whether you agree with it or not!): "So if I understand you correctly, your idea is..." "In other words, you're saying..."
  
• Summarize - to highlight important facts, ideas, etc., review progress so far and establish basis for further discussion: "These seem to be your key ideas..." "Let me just check where we've got to so far..."
  

The opposite behaviours can be called listening stoppers:

• Denial - "No, that's not true." Also, body language like lip pursing, rolling eyes, ignoring comments.
  
• Counter-interrogation - responding with questions that attack, criticize or make false assumptions
  
• Offering counter-opinions - Rejecting the other person's point of view out of hand and substituting your own, "accurate" version: "Let me tell you what really happened!"

When team members can learn to give and receive feedback using Heart, it opens the channels to and engages the rational brain to better process the Head-based facts, data and information. A winning combination!

tmc can help you and your team members to give and receive feedback more constructively, interact collaboratively, and more productively deliver the results you need. To find out more - contact me.

Note: For those of you outside Australia who wish to view the episodes of The Apprentice Australia that I'm discussing in this series of posts, you can find them on YouTube here. Meanwhile if you're in Australia you can see not only the episodes to date but also post-episode video diaries on the Nine website here.
.

Update: Story & Narrative Approaches to Change (Conference MELB 8-9 Oct)

There have been great societies that did not use the wheel, but there have been no societies that did not tell stories. ~ Ursula K. LeGuin

This is a quick update about the two-day Celebrating Story conference happening next Thu-Fri (8-9 October) in Melbourne.

There are still spots available!

Organized by my friends at Babelfish Group, the conference will feature five sets of five parallel sessions (25 sessions in all, plus an Open Space session) to explore the use of story and narrative approaches to change across the areas of business, government and community.

For full details check out the latest conference brochure or contact conference organizer Andrew Rixon directly at +61 400 352 809.

And - tell him Todd sent you!


Shifting the narrative in organizations - why change is NOT like riding a bike

Here's additional information on the session that I'll be presenting at the conference, bright and early on day two (Friday 9AM):

You are invited to a conversation that explores some brain-based aspects of story, narrative and meaning-making. Change invites people to shift their habitual narrative and in most cases provokes a (limbic) survival response, part of the ongoing Battle inside your Brain. The practical challenge is therefore to channel the resulting emotional energy into productive cognitive action and away from reactivity/resistance.

After Todd talks about the latest research in social cognitive neuroscience that explains why it can be so hard to effect behavioural change in organizations and why change programs fail to take hold, we will share an interactive discussion of what works well in practice and what we can do differently to get the results we want.

The best of the session:
• Gain insights into the hard science behind the soft skills in the areas of story, narrative and meaning-making
• Learn practical ways to help people manage the inevitable emotional reaction to change
• Leaders will learn how to communicate in a way that speaks to each person in his/her own "language" and invites people along on the change journey

Hope to see you there - do come up and say hello!
.

Following tmconsultancy on twitter

Thanks for clicking! Here’s what’s on offer.

What you can expect as a tmconsultancy follower on twitter are posts with:

• links to practical and interesting articles and blog posts on (among others) the following topics:

• Positive Change
• human behaviour and interaction
• neuroscience & brain research
• limbic responses
• emotional reactivity
• psychology, philosophy, anthropology
• employee engagement
• negotiation, mediation, facilitation
• persuasion & influence
• creativity & innovation
• coaching
• strategy development & execution
• cross-cultural business
• marketing
• communications
• adult learning principles

• personal status/location updates – esp. while travelling to neat new places
• my own occasional musings, observations, insights or outbursts
• info about worthwhile causes – esp. animal welfare/rehabilitation, habitat protection and educational programs
• retweets, kudos and thanks – to show the love
• and, of course, questions to tap the collective knowledge/wisdom of the twitterverse

Who's Todd anyway?
I’m a Canadian living in Manly, Australia (part of Sydney’s “Northern Beaches”) and I divide my time among Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, the UK and Canada.

Ich spreche sehr gerne Deutsch, je parle pas mal le français, ik spreek wel Nederlands, estoy aprendiendo lentamente español, och jag förstår lite svensk - so I enjoy connecting with people all over the world.

My non-work interests include surfing, scuba diving, sailing, wildlife, travel, photography, design, film, cooking and learning about wine (especially big Aussie reds...the "hard" way, glass by glass).

What I do
I consult, write and speak about the many aspects of human behaviour and interaction that can help (or hinder) organizations seeking practical business results. For my professional bio check out my LinkedIn profile and, if we share interests, send me an invitation to connect.

Thanks!
tm

Networking at the speed of Twitter: social media

Thanks to Matt O'Neill and the London Communicators and Engagement Group for the invitation to this week's April meetup in London and the chance to hear Euan Semple discuss the latest trends in social media.

I like to think I've fair put myself out there in social media terms: besides this blog, you need only have a look at the left hand column next to this post to see that I've taking part in LinkedIn, Xing, ecademy, Naymz and various Ning communities (Applied Improv, Solutions Focus in Organizations Linkup, Sustainable Leadership and Open Source Integral).

But twitter...well until now I've until recently been of two minds, asking myself: How much social media is enough? Or too much...? I was still unconvinced of the twitter's value proposition for my business.


Downsides of twitter

You may already share some of the concerns I had and understand the causes of my hesitation: the short-message format of "tweets" encourages a trend I find sinister, namely the mangling of language and grammar that was begun by mobile text-messaging and has now found its large-scale cousin in twitter.

I've also had a concern about the utility and purpose of twitter - by and large there seems quite a lot of inane, vacuous and valueless noise about the mundane trivialities of people's everyday lives, posted (as put in the article Fear of Twitter) as part of the present day's "look-at-me adolescent neediness, constant-contact media addiction, birdlike attention-span compression and vapidity to the point of depravity."

And to add to the dramas, there has lately been research warning that Twitter and Facebook could harm moral values as the phenomenon of instant/always-on messaging tempts us to act speedily (and emotionally) rather than morally (and rationally). In brain terms, these instantaneous media seem to promote or at least foster and environment in which limbic reactions (and re-tweets) are the norm. People are prone to action without consideration.

In sum, I've been conflicted.


A personal twitter tipping point: channels, concision, choices, currency

Then I had a conversation with Kay Ross in Hong Kong and it tipped me over from the blogosphere into the twittersphere. What did it was when Kay mentioned at least two business opportunities that came about as a result of twitter - that is, with people that she would not have met any other way and that twitter made possible.

This nicely illustrates the first salient point that I took away from this week's discussion with Euan and the London communicators: more channels means more chances to connect with other people whom I might not otherwise meet.

The corollary: different channels serve different purposes. I use LinkedIn, xing and ecademy more or less as calling cards to present my online CV with credentials, background and experience. Ning groups are a way for me to keep up on the events and people associated with particular communities of practice and interest. And I use this blog to share insights and content with a broader community.

The question for me was: would twitter simply duplicate efforts or could it be a useful and complementary application?

The answer to this is the second aspect of twitter that I find useful: it requires concision. Tim Ferriss' outstanding piece on how to use twitter without twitter using you, including his insight that twitter's best use is as a micro-blogging platform - a quick and concise way to share info and ask questions of my network without writing an email or writing a blog post.

As the title of his post also suggests, and a point that was made clear in Euan's talk as well, the explosion of twitter and all preceding forms of social media makes it all the more important to make choices about how much content I post and consume. With social media the brakes are off and constant streams of content are more than ever the norm. Anyone who's ever emerged from endless surfing wondering what happened to the day can attest to the stream-of-consciousness quality of trolling about on the Net.

At base, however, it's about priority-setting; if one lacks direction and purpose, procrastination can as easily happen online as in the kitchen rummaging for snacks. And if you're really not so into hearing about someone's updates on location and activities, you have the choice to turn it off or ignore it. So there is a case to be made for taking personal responsibility - just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use/see it.

As for keeping current with people, Joel Comm, makes the case that twitter "goes to the core of one of our most important needs...connecting with others of our species." But does the currency that "Twit Power" offers really stem from sharing inane details about favourite donut flavours and whether I've shaved today, or is there some onus on me as a micro-blogger to provide some value to the folks who follow my content?

The conclusion I've drawn is that if I am adding to the information stream I want to add things of value and potential interest to others, to be the signal that people seek out rather than the noise they filter.

So I've taken into account the potential downsides and, on the basis of the above four factors (channels, concision, choices, currency) I have now been twittering for a short while.

I should add: online social networking is different in character from the kind of face-to-face networking that's behind my current travels and enables much of my work. More about that in an upcoming post!
TM