Flourishing People

The significance of the art of communication has been reinforced for me in a variety of contexts recently.  I do think it is more of an art than a science, with the requirement to be contextual and adjust to personalities and situations.

It came up in an Action Learning (AL) set when I brought an issue where delivery of my work depends on someone else who tends to get distracted or overwhelmed and therefore is not delivering their side of the bargain.  Despite some attempts to resolve the issue through one-to-one conversations, it became clear within the AL set that I need to resolve to sit down with all parties in one room so that we can all communicate and plan how to break through the impasse.  In this particular context, sensitivity to the needs of others is a key organisational value which sometimes gets in the way of running the business or at least makes it more complicated.

Another recent issue involved my facilitating a meeting between two work colleagues whose miscommunication over past weeks and months has led to tension and assuming the worst of motives behind simple actions or inactions.  It was uncomfortable for them to sit down together and talk it through, and not that easy for me to persuade them and risk coming over as a ‘headmaster’ figure.  But so worthwhile for their good, that of the team and ultimately for the organisation.

To add some science to the art, it is worth recognising that one definition of communication is “a two-way process in which there is an exchange and progression of thoughts, feelings or ideas (energy) towards a mutually accepted goal or direction (information)”.

You need a sender, a message, a channel and a receiver.  Berlo developed this from previous work into the SMCR model.  Of course, if it is a two-way process rather than a monologue, then the participants take turns in being the sender and receiver and the chances of miscommunication increase dramatically.

Now my homework (again from the AL set) is to read some of Marshall Rosenberg’s writing on non-violent communication.  Hopefully that will help me and others to become finer artists in the sometimes lost art of communication.

I was co-presenting a workshop last week on ‘questions – why bother?’  The context was a group of Action Learning facilitators who meet every three months for peer development.  It’s a subject worth exploring in a wider, workplace environment.

Why do we bother asking questions?  Broadly there are two categories of questions: those that seek information or data gathering; and those that aim to discover and explore.

The first encourages convergence – how? what? why?  Coming towards conclusions.

Discovery and investigation tends to be more divergent, going off into unknown territory – what if…? how about…? why not…?

Nancy Kline in ‘Time to Think‘ discusses the incisive question.  The questions that can challenge obvious or hidden limiting assumptions.  If that wasn’t the case, what would you do then?  If you could work better as a team, how would that feel?

There is also a tendency in many workplaces to focus on the problems and what’s going wrong. We ask questions to solve the immediate crisis.  We know when that’s solved (or not), another problem will soon arise, or has already.  So we can lurch from crisis to crisis, for ever fire-fighting.

But what if we made time to ask other questions, to explore other possibilities?  Might we discover new ways of doing and being?  And what if we invested time to listen more to each other.  It’s an investment, not a waste of time.  The answer is often within us.  We’re just too busy or frantic to discover it.

In the workshop we reviewed the TGROOW model as a framework to ask questions and listen to each other:-

• Topic – clarify what we’re discussing
• Goal – what would make a good outcome?
• Reality – discover and agree what we are facing right now
• Obstacles – what are we aware of that we have to find a way through?
• Options – exploring possibilities and alternatives
• Way forward – creating an action plan together

Questions are good.  It’s how we ask them that matters – and how we listen to the answers.

Last week I was at a conference which included a case study workshop on risk.  Amongst other topics, we discussed if and should risk be avoided?  Is there an acceptable level of risk?  How do we manage risk?  Is there a general attitude in favour of risk aversion?  Does the current practice (and requirement) for risk assessment and attention to health and safety stifle innovation and initiative?

When I started my own company two and a half years ago, some people felt I was being ‘brave’ and taking a (big) risk.  Perhaps that was a reflection on their perception of me!  Yet for me (and my immediate family) it felt the ‘right’ thing to do.  Yes, there was risk involved compared to the alternative of staying in an employed role in a relatively stable organisation.  But there was also the ‘risk’ of not daring to take the opportunity and see where it would lead, of missing out on the ‘what if’ and ‘if only’.

Risk also features in another of Marcus Buckingham’s books that I am currently reading: ‘Go put your strengths to work‘.  There is an inherent risk in trying to identify your own strengths and then use them.  You might get it wrong – what you think is a strength may be an illusion or a delusion!  You may correctly identify strengths but then be unable to use them in your current situation – what then?  Do you negotiate a new role, or look for a new organisation to work for, or step out on your own?

The book offers a six-step approach to capturing, clarifying and confirming your strengths.  By noting what you love and what you loathe in your tasks over a week and then analysing exactly what made you love or loathe it, you build up a picture of when you excel and when (and why) you don’t.  Buckingham offers other tools to help confirm those really are your strengths.

Then comes another risk.  Can you stop doing those things that are not your strength – that you really don’t like doing and are not good at doing?  What is the risk to you, your reputation, your team, your organisation?  Is there someone else who can do well what you can’t do very well?  Or does it need doing anyway?

In previous organisations where I worked, the greatest challenge was to ask “what can we stop doing?”  There is almost always more to do – but to stop doing something?  And of course, if you just take on more and more, that’s a certain route to burn-out.  It’s a critical issue for many not-for-profit and charitable organisations faced with ever increasing demands on limited resources, both human and financial.

What is a risk worth taking for you today?

Ref: Go put your strengths to work. M Buckingham (2007). ISBN 0743263294

Organisations need to know how their people are performing.  Are they meeting targets set and reaching the performance standards required?  Most organisations use some form of appraisal process but I wonder how many of those processes really work and deliver the information required?

In previous organisations I have used the Video Arts material, especially ‘The Dreaded Appraisal’.  Using comedy drama, the key skills of active listening, constructive feedback and structured conversations are brought into focus.  In the film, examples of really bad practice are contrasted with good use of these people management skills.

So often the appraisal process is treated as a chore to keep the HR Department happy (or at least off our backs) – a form filling exercise that at best achieves very little and at worst creates animosity between manager and staff that prevails for the rest of the year.  How can it add real value to the organisation and to people’s working lives?

The first step is to prepare for the appraisal interview.  Ensure the time is adequate (I reckon on two hours) and in diaries in plenty of time.  Both appraiser and appraisee need to make time to review the past with as much if not more emphasis on what went well as what went badly.  Rather than a mutual rebuking session, an appraisal interview needs to include praise and celebration.  That is not to disregard problems and mistakes – on either side – but rather to keep them in context and hopefully learn from them.  A more recent Video Arts production ‘How am I doing?’ compares the appraisal process to a doctor’s consultation and review of case history.

Secondly, managers need to use their skills of active listening, using a variety of types of questions – more open and probing than closed.  A listening environment requires uninterrupted space and time without distractions of mobile phones, etc.   The appraisee is more likely to self-appraise and come up with their own solutions to issues if given the opportunity and time to think.

Thirdly, having reviewed the past, the appraisal interview is the appropriate time to plan for the future.  This is best considered from the twin angles of work plans and personal development plans.  A wide variety of possible learning and development interventions need to be discussed, rather than assume formal training courses are always the answer.  SMART objectives which are specific, measurable, agreed, realistic and with time-lines are much better than vague aims or targets which may or may not be met.

The best people managers use appraisal interviews not just to assess their team members’ performance but also their own performance as team leaders.  Not so much ‘how are they doing?’ as ‘how are we doing (together)?’

There’s a general understanding that when people leave an organisation, they are actually leaving their manager.  Obviously there are exceptions to the rule and all sorts of reasons why people change jobs.  However good ‘people managers’ tend to retain good staff and bad managers tend to lose good staff.

So what makes the difference?  Can you distinguish good managers from bad?  More importantly, what do excellent managers do differently compared to the rest?  The polling organisation Gallup have used their vast quantity of organisational survey data to see if there are answers that stand up statistically.  They identify what ‘rules of management’ these excellent people managers break all or most of the time (see the reference to Marcus Buckingham’s book below).

Firstly, the best people managers select for talent.  Talent is defined as

a recurring pattern of thought, feeling or behaviour that can be productively applied

The more general management rule is to select for experience, qualifications and skills.  However, experience is not always relevant nor necessarily an accurate predictor of future performance.  Qualifications can be obtained through training and skills can be learnt.  Talent is either there or not.  Talents required vary with the role – so you need to know which talents are most critical in any given role, and how to identify them

Secondly, the best managers define required performance outcomes and do not dictate how employees achieve those outcomes.  That way, management control is more hands-off – remote control – and employees can use their own strengths and take responsibility for delivery.

Thirdly, excellent people managers focus on employee’s strengths.  That is far more effective than the usual ‘rule’ of fixing weaknesses.  Individual development plans that highlight where staff are performing badly is not a great motivational tool.  Managers should manage around weaknesses and as much as possible, make those weaknesses irrelevant.  It’s better for managers to spend time with their best people and identify why they are so good, rather than the common practice of spending large amounts of time with poor performers, who may never be very good.

Lastly, the best managers take time to identify where people fit best.  The usual promotion route is not the best for everyone – Laurence Peter’s Principle that people are promoted to their level of incompetence occurs far too frequently.  Organisations need to be creative in rewarding people for what they do best and not set a hierarchy and corresponding increasing salary scale that moves people outside their real expertise and excellence in performance.

At an organisational level, the quality of people management can be ascertained from a simple employee survey of just 12 questions.  It’s not difficult – but it does take courage to break the standard rules.  Isn’t great performance worth that risk?

Ref: Buckingham, M (2005). First, Break all the Rules. Pocket Books. ISBN: 1-4165-0266-1

3D HR’s logo is a tetrahedron – a four-sided pyramid.  In our case three faces represent the three dimensions of good Human Resources practice – guidance in better people management, growth in personal development skills and effective collaboration for improved team-working.  The base of the tetrahedron is the vision and values of the organisation that we are supporting.

In April at a CIPD exhibition I came across another tetrahedron, used by TetraMap ®.  Intrigued, I spent time talking with Anne at the stand and filling in a quick paper exercise to rank 10 sets of 4 words.  The result was a snap-shot of my natural preferences which was surprisingly accurate.  So last week, I spent 2 days training to be a TetraMap facilitator.

For several years I have used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ® and in some circumstances it is very helpful to people.  By contrast, TetraMap is more intuitive, more incisive about your own natural preference and behaviour, and more useful in how you can adapt to others’ natural preferences.

TetraMap draws on the images or metaphors within nature:-

• Earth, like a mountain, is firm
• Air, like the wind, is clear
• Water, like a lake, is calm
• Fire, like the sun, is bright

We each have an order or rank of preferences, although we each have and use the four elements.  We just tend to use one or two more than the others, most of the time.

The four elements can be mapped as a TetraMap and portrayed as a tetrahedron.  The tetrahedron is one of the strongest 3-D objects.  It has no one dominant face.  Each face touches the other three faces – they are all inter-connected.  There are no faces that are directly opposite another.

When we exhibit a preference for one element, that’s the ‘face’ other people see.  They may glimpse two other faces or elements and one tends to be hidden, beneath us.  It’s still there, just not very obvious.

In general and in varying ways, people show their elemental preferences in how they behave and what they pay attention to:-

• Earth – appreciate facts and tend to be decisive
• Air – appreciate logic and tend to be orderly
• Water – appreciate feelings and tend to be considerate
• Fire – appreciate possibilities and tend to be spontaneous

If you know your own preferences – your own nature – and can discover the nature of others, team-working is much more likely to be effective, productive and harmonious.

There are more details on the 3D HR website including a link to the TetraMap International site.  If you also are intrigued to know more, do contact us.

Note: TetraMap is a registered trademark of TetraMap International.

Our company 3D HR is two years old.  So as on any birthday, it’s a time to look back and also to look forward.  I have just read through all my previous blogs and it’s interesting how often I come back to the subject of thinking and reflection.

There are several sayings in English about thinking: “on second thoughts”, “think again”, “think once, think twice”.  Apparently the biology or neurology behind it is that our first thoughts release the neuro-transmitter dopamine which can trigger an immediate or impatient response; the second thought starts a cognitive process with a longer term perspective.  Taking time to “think again” results in a qualitative improvement in decision-making or reflection.

Perhaps the most important time to have second thoughts is when sending e-mails.  A quick, one-thought reaction and hitting the send button can do immense damage to relationships and even businesses.  Save to draft gives time for reflection and perhaps redrafting or even deletion.

Thoughts on our second year:  it’s been a great variety of differing challenges, from developing HR policies and procedures to number-crunching salary reviews to facilitating meetings between employees and managers.  Working with large and small organisations, as a one-off or over several months.  Travelling to London, Swindon and southern Africa.  Being part of a larger consultancy, with a colleague and working on my own.  On second thoughts, would I do it again and start my own company?  Absolutely!

Looking to the future: it is worth reflecting on where my strengths lie and therefore where my focus should be for future work.  Developing and writing clear, consistent and concise HR policies and procedures and finding ways to improve accessibility – through an on-line Staff Handbook – is a strength.  So is facilitating and chairing one-to-one meetings between employees and their manager.  Up-front training is less of a strength and marketing the business is where I need external assistance.  And of course planning and making time for regular reflection, to deliberately think again about what I am doing and where I am spending my time, creating a good work-home balance, is crucial.

What do you need to take time to reflect on and think again?

Effective team-working is one of 3D HR’s dimensions – the other two being good people management and developing personal skills.  These three areas create a strong foundation for a successful organisation which we visualise as a tetrahedron.  Interestingly I’ve just come across Tetramap as a concept of discussing and appreciating difference between individuals in how we deal with the world – but more of that after my accreditation training in July…

What makes a good team?  What are the defining characteristics that you can identify in an effective team?  During my work experience I have been part of some great teams and some poor ones – what made the difference?

In a recent conference I was introduced to the book ‘The Five Dysfunctions of a Team’ by Patrick Lencioni.   Since then I’ve bought the book and read the Field Guide.   I think it’s well worth sharing and encouraging others to read this ‘leadership fable’.

A team must first be built on a foundation of trust – a willingness to be vulnerable with one another and admit mistakes and weaknesses.  Secondly, constructive conflict should not only be allowed but also encouraged – fear of conflict leads to avoidance of those ‘difficult’ discussions and making hard decisions. Commitment or buy-in follows trust and not avoiding conflict, because team members are able and willing to fully endorse team decisions even if contrary to their initial reservations.

Effective teams hold each other to account and are prepared to challenge each other if necessary when a team member does not deliver what’s required.  Lastly, at the top of the pyramid, functioning teams pay attention to collective results rather than individual needs.

Lencioni presents the concept as a negative model – in terms of dysfunctions – probably because it’s easier to describe how a non-functioning team can improve.  The best of teams can still improve and function better by paying attention to these critical issues.

Presented as a five-step pyramid, the Five Dysfunctions look simple and common sense.  Yet there is much to commend when a model can be so easily described even if a lot harder to implement.

Happy team-building!  The book is in the 3D HR Book Store.

 Print This Post

How do you enable people to flourish, especially in the workplace?  That’s the aim of 3D HR as an organisation so it’s an important question for me.  I was at the Centre for Applied Positive Psychology conference in April with the theme of flourishing communities and flourishing organisations so what follows are a few of the insights I took away from the conference and later reflections.

To flourish means:

to blossom; to grow vigorously, succeed, thrive, prosper;

to be at the peak of development, activity, influence, production etc;

to be in one’s prime

Three real company case studies were presented at the conference – from a large multinational, a medium-sized family firm and a small highly successful new technology company.  In each case, there has been a deliberate emphasis on recruiting and employing people to use their strengths.  If a workplace is filled with people who know what their strengths are and are using those strengths in their day-to-day work, they and the organisation will almost inevitably flourish.

The smaller company had devoted time to clarifying its direction and purpose – to provide 10/10 customer service, to have a happy workforce and to avoid waste.  That’s it.  Using three ‘pillars’ of freedom, support and feedback, workers are able to play to their strengths.  Stripping away a rules-based approach of control over overtime, expense claims and paper-chasing appraisals, the company has increased in profitability, size and achievement of customer and industry awards.

The multinational has dispensed with a complex competency framework and adopted strengths-based recruitment.  If you can identify applicant’s strengths and place them in a role where they can use those strengths, then they are likely to flourish.

In another workshop, ‘multiple scaling’ was introduced as a simple concept to be used in performance and coaching conversations.  On a scale of 0 to 10, where would you rate your overall competence?  Choose 2 or 3 specific competences required to do your job and rate those on a scale of 0 to 10.  Then discuss a scale of your choice and talk about why you think you perform at that level.  What has helped you perform at that level?  Comparing that to another scale, what’s the difference?  What are you doing differently at the higher level?  What would other people notice about you that was different?  And if you were at 10, how would you and other people know?

Having reflected with Jan after the conference, we realised life situations are not so simple.  It’s obvious that we all have weaknesses.   So just to talk about strengths can be misleading for people and for organisations.  However, can we use our strengths to combat our weaknesses?   If we assume that all required competences for a particular role to be performed well need to be at 5 or above, what about those we rate below 5?

For example, someone rates their IT skills at 3.  But they rate their strength to learn through someone else at 8, especially if that includes hands-on learning.   So they need to use their strength of rapport in identifying someone who is strong in IT skills, learning from a manual, summarising it and coaching them in a hands-on, encouraging way.  Their IT skills soar to 5!

If another person’s strength is high (say, 7) in talking through issues while it’s low (say, 4) in sitting down in a room on their own to write an essay, can they use their strength in vocal discussion to combat their relative weakness in written work through using a digital recorder, for example?

People succeed, thrive and prosper – we flourish – when we use our strengths, apply them to strengthen those weaknesses we cannot ignore, and when we are in an enabling environment.  Who will you strengthen and encourage today?

For more information on CAPP see www.cappeu.com and for more on scaling see The Solutions Focus

What do you think of when you hear the word ‘prudence’?  It tends not to be the most inspiring of virtues – a bit sour and dull perhaps?  But in its original meaning, prudence is great!

The essence of prudence is practical wisdom. Now that sounds more interesting.  To be wise in a down-to-earth way, to decide what to do and when – and what not to do and why – feels business-like.  Having the prudence to decide to go to that meeting or to plan how to chair it – well, that could make a significant difference in the workplace.

Jennifer Fox Eades in her book ‘Celebrating Strengths’ recalls Aristotle’s definition of prudence:

The prudent individual is neither reckless nor rigid, neither impulsive or compulsive, but balanced and flexible. A prudent person is one who considers what life is for and how this may be best achieved, one who balances short term pleasures against long term goals.

The idea of taking time to make reflective choices, to imagine a future and work towards its attainment – that does sound like practical wisdom.  Add the concept of synchronicity and life becomes full of possibilities.  Synchronicity is the sense of going with the flow.  Sensing opportunities and being prepared to risk their exploration.

Joseph Jaworski, with Peter Senge, refer in their book ‘Synchronicity’ as it being the ‘inner path of leadership’.  It combines skills and experience with creativity and vision – all earthed in the reality of business and home life.  To put it another way, it’s prudence dressed up in colour, psychedelic and exciting, full of ‘what if’ and ‘I wonder…’.

Here’s to prudence and synchronicity – useful attributes in difficult times.

Note: I’ve added the two references to the 3D HR Book Store