tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243661252024-03-05T20:33:21.877+00:00Ambiguity AdvantageThoughts, research and ideas about all things concerning ambiguity, risk, uncertainty, chaos and even certainty as it appertains to leadership, management and people's lives.Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-14057310823631087372013-05-01T07:15:00.001+00:002013-05-01T07:15:08.414+00:00Everything changes - including this blog.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjZf-Nwfzo9_3OXI7c69F_R6QJFOv-FMPAm1M-AWW-LtLKYmYhGcWUQbS8sD7e3LvoVttJGWtKQqmWr7x5fe5eLji_PVY5mdGK5ajEGMw_scr82c9k_qzh17_7I8VjCcHOeXB6/s1600/moving6pf.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjZf-Nwfzo9_3OXI7c69F_R6QJFOv-FMPAm1M-AWW-LtLKYmYhGcWUQbS8sD7e3LvoVttJGWtKQqmWr7x5fe5eLji_PVY5mdGK5ajEGMw_scr82c9k_qzh17_7I8VjCcHOeXB6/s200/moving6pf.jpg" width="178" /></a></div>
Everything is in flux, or flow and so is this blog. I am moving it to my website at www.centrei.org. See you over there.<br />
<br />
Dave</div>
Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-75761640449358729602012-09-06T05:13:00.001+00:002012-09-06T05:29:24.042+00:00Hermetic Learning and what we didn't let the Romans do for us<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEZVGFqZsXG9AQrQnp-ANufOCGa0wrTeIkhT4ivieI-iWLBv-r5hM0SMMRF8whHvkSt-XdhjI6fLnO5cL7yuBbRE1z0WrEXSSKW2niY3Bs3pvg0uW2KHNKGVtS8nBuKBHjewXQ/s1600/IMG_2637.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEZVGFqZsXG9AQrQnp-ANufOCGa0wrTeIkhT4ivieI-iWLBv-r5hM0SMMRF8whHvkSt-XdhjI6fLnO5cL7yuBbRE1z0WrEXSSKW2niY3Bs3pvg0uW2KHNKGVtS8nBuKBHjewXQ/s320/IMG_2637.JPG" width="240" /></a></div>
<!--?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?-->
<br />
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
What we didn't let the Romans do for us.
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">A few weeks ago I took my ten year old son Joe to Vindolanda, the Roman fort situated next to Hadrians Wall. The remains of the fort are complete with sewerage systems, fresh running water served to almost every brick built multistory building on the site, hot baths, pubs, shops, weapons factories, farriers, everything in fact we take for granted these days minus electricity and gas really. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">Vindolanda was build c AD 300, 1712 years ago and was one of a series of such forts. Each fort was connected to a network of proper all weather roads complete with drainage and a complete set of traffic regulations. </span><br />
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.00390625);"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.00390625);"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.00390625);">'So what happened when the Romans left 'my son asked?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.00390625);">I had to think.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
What happened when the Romans did pull out was that we the indigenous Britons not only ignored the technology left behind but dismantled their buildings and roads to build huts! It took us over a thousand years to get back to similar levels of sanitation and general living standards.
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.00390625);">This is a wonderful example of a hermetic or non-permeable learning system whereby learning available outside of the current system and set of constructs is ignored and not even recognised as something to learn from. This isn't so much a case of reinventing the wheel, it's more like throwing the wheels away because we are too busy developing new ways of dragging things around.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.00390625);"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial;">I travel a lot and last month I drove through Africa. 11,000 km from Durban to Capetown, up through Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland and back into South Africa. Each country was as different as it was possible to be. You crossed the border and it was like stepping into another world. The distance of less than one hundred yards could make all the difference between home made brick built houses with windows, fire places and sanitation or poorly constructed mud huts. People sitting at the side of the road begging, to productive small businesses sprouting up everywhere. Desolate bush to productive and well managed farms. Squalor to well decorated and organised villages all within a few hundred yards of each other and this isn't down to </span><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">national poverty rates. The transition from Zambia to Malawi for example couldn't have been more stark. In terms of GDP Zambia ranks as the 139th highest in the world according to the latest figures from the IMF. Malawi is 4th from the bottom of the list at 180th and yet you would not know it looking at the difference between the countries. Zambia is largely run down, pothole strewn and has all the hallmarks of a failed state. Malawi is neat, clean and everyone is an </span></span><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">entrepreneur, with smart roadside shops and amazingly organised villages. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.00390625);">I also travel a lot from organisation to organisation and government to government. Each one is different, and like the early Britons and the populations of the countries I visit, I see and experience the same hermetic learning systems where people fail to walk next door and learn. I marvel when I get appalling service in a restaurant, or end up in a poorly managed hotel for example. Do these people not visit other restraunts and hotels? Do they not see what would transform their business? No, would appear to be the answer. it would appear the Romans did sod all for us. Not because of them, but because we didn't get it. The system was too advanced for us to make the leap and think, 'clean water direct to the house and sewerage systems' are neat ideas lets copy. Nope our response was to dismantle the technology so we could chuck the stones at each other, go to a well for our water and poo in the river. We only learn things that are in our system or close enough to it for us to grasp, even if it is given or left to us on a plate. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Now about the current economic and political situation....</span></div>
</div>
Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-30886621580989156362012-04-28T06:51:00.001+00:002012-04-28T06:52:00.521+00:00Internal Tension: Compliance v Entrepreneurialism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil5Vci84Ya5n-TVqg-FtC5TtaMZDNvc_EFcLEPrk3com1cakB-4q-izW1TTGvCz4SDFxfVZHTsXuMr-aRlSp8R01FmxGaxCzVuIVyZDscrIMaN1SbrkZl527FEuPudZ-HXmgwT/s1600/Compliance.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil5Vci84Ya5n-TVqg-FtC5TtaMZDNvc_EFcLEPrk3com1cakB-4q-izW1TTGvCz4SDFxfVZHTsXuMr-aRlSp8R01FmxGaxCzVuIVyZDscrIMaN1SbrkZl527FEuPudZ-HXmgwT/s320/Compliance.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I was talking to a CEO the other day who wanted his people, particularly his senior managers to 'stand on their own two feet' as he put it. In short he wanted his people to become more entrepreneurial, creative, innovative and to be better critical thinkers. This is probably one of the more common requests I get in terms of senior management development and is a core activity of mine as it has at it's heart the ability to deal with ambiguity.<br />
<br />
Successful acts of innovation, creativity and entrepreneurialism in particular are defined by the individual's ability to hold, cope and be persistent in situations that are highly ambiguous. Few true entrepreneurs create businesses using a step-by-step 'it's all mapped out' approach. Rather they feel their way forwards, frequently changing direction, often changing their business to meet prevailing conditions and succeed.<br />
<br />
For example an indian restaurant set up in an out-of-town cinema complex just outside Oxford about five years ago. It was designed as a high end, sophisticated and elegant eatery. The business struggled for years. The problem is the restaurant is in a concrete cinema complex right next door to a <i>very</i> popular 'eat-as-much-as-you-want' fixed price chinese buffet. The chinese buffet would have queues outside whilst the indian was empty. A quick look in the vast car park outside was all the data you needed about the socio-economic profile of the typical customer to the complex, these are certainly not high end vehicles. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. After struggling for years the business changed tack and is now an eat-as-much-as-you-want fixed price indian buffet. It is now a popular business with a reasonable turnover. They changed their business strategy, (eventually) and appeared to have saved they day.<br />
<br />
The problem, in many organisations and companies is that most managers grow up and are promoted for compliance and regulating people, not for being maverick agents of innovation and change. Most organisations require layers of agreement (and meetings) for any change to occur. Being a creative and innovative entrepreneur, in many organisations is a bit like trying to melt an iceberg with the aid of a soggy box of matches.<br />
<br />
So, can you change someone from being an agent of compliance into an entrepreneurial being. The short answer is yes, in many (not all) cases. However if the organisational systems promote compliance and regulation this is very hard to achieve and will certainly create 'drag' in the entrepreneurial aspirations of the company.</div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-9821694654870677212012-04-23T15:06:00.001+00:002012-04-23T15:07:34.298+00:00The Psychology of Ambiguity 3: Availability cascades<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAOxP0Zng1Wv4eeEFarcFRAiX83zK2EZ0fD003QkCAkfiPheqPDRu-VAGpeIE5O0KSuY4qPUV69WXZ3ZWgWA3Jrx0I6Uz9pkOVLi65qPgBN8rEuTW3Zlh0qL1gxpBUyUqaYH2G/s1600/cascade.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAOxP0Zng1Wv4eeEFarcFRAiX83zK2EZ0fD003QkCAkfiPheqPDRu-VAGpeIE5O0KSuY4qPUV69WXZ3ZWgWA3Jrx0I6Uz9pkOVLi65qPgBN8rEuTW3Zlh0qL1gxpBUyUqaYH2G/s200/cascade.jpg" width="155" /></a></div>
One of the issues most people face when they have to deal with an ambiguous situation is separating out new world facts and beliefs from old world facts and beliefs.<br />
<br />
A new world fact is a new truth that has come about because of a change.<br />
An old world fact is a truth that was considered to be true before the change, but is no longer true as a result of that change.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
When a change occurs it takes time<br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>for the change to be noticed, and</li>
<li>for the new rules or facts / beliefs to become obvious.</li>
</ol>
<div>
As a result of this lag many people continue to believe in the old world rules and facts even though they no longer apply. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As these old rules and facts usually still have popular currency they can grow in strength in times of change even though they have now been replaced or changed. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
An availability cascase is a psychological phenomena whereby a belief gains increasing credibility the more popular it becomes and the more we hear about it. If we start to hear about something from a number of different sources we are much more likely to believe it even if it is no longer true. In effect the facts become self-reinforcing. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some common popular misbeliefs brought on by an availability cascade would include things like:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Shaving causes hair to grow back thicker and stronger. It doesn't.</li>
<li>Men think about sex every seven second. It has never been measured.</li>
<li>Sugar causes hyperactivity in children. There is no scientific evidence for this. In fact double blind experiments have shown no change in behaviour.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Have a look at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">wikipedia list of common misconceptions</a> most of which have been brought about by availability cascases. This effect is even more pronounced in ambiguous situations. </div>
</div>
</div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-35033134399257410692012-04-22T19:32:00.000+00:002012-04-22T19:32:10.634+00:00Motivate or Manipulate?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibNshSO6ywaJp4BBfjLPhziGQEDOe7EV1M-fWGVr5oU8z5N3N0D8BJzlXQJfIdXNkn9E9Dy8b90khNmoB15VBOC61xJ5JEgIRCFsJmgXwLDiEeTP-y3rwbw_GmllpmxkZoo07M/s1600/manipulate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibNshSO6ywaJp4BBfjLPhziGQEDOe7EV1M-fWGVr5oU8z5N3N0D8BJzlXQJfIdXNkn9E9Dy8b90khNmoB15VBOC61xJ5JEgIRCFsJmgXwLDiEeTP-y3rwbw_GmllpmxkZoo07M/s320/manipulate.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I was running a workshop for managers last week and as often happens in leadership and management courses, a discussion ensued about how to motivate people. As the discussion developed it became increasingly clear that some of the managers, whilst using the term 'motivate others' they actually meant 'manipulate others' into doing things they don't want to do through some form of systematic reward and punishment protocol. The real question was "How do I get people to do what I want them to do". This often also means "How do I <i>force</i> people to do what I want them to do?"<br />
<br />
So I thought I would do a short blog on 'motivation' to highlight the difference between motivation, manipulation and using force of any nature, including rewards and punishments.<br />
<br />
My first question is: "What does it feel like to be <i>genuinely</i> motivated to do something?"<br />
Yes that feeling; the excitement and drive. The sense that you really <i>want</i> to do this, often regardless of some extrinsic (external) reward.<br />
<br />
My next question is: "What does it feel like to be forced or manipulated into doing something?". Quite a difference my guess is.<br />
<br />
It turns out that there are some core factors that create a motivated state:<br />
<br />
The main contributing factor to becoming motivated is that the task has to be <i>meaningful</i> to the individual. So what makes something meaningful?<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>External Validity. Firstly the task has to make sense to the individual on the level that they know how it fits into or contributes to the advancement of some goal. they actually agree with. This may of course include a personal goal such as promotion or inclusion in a CV for example.</li>
<li>Global Validity. If the task passes the individual's external validity test, the task then has to have global validity in that the individual has to believe that this is a good and valid thing to do to. In other words is a worthy cause or goal? Is what they are about to contribute to valued by them.</li>
<li>Internal Validity. Thirdly the individual has to understand what to do and how to it, <i>and</i> feel that their skills and knowledge (expertise) is being utilised correctly and are valued. Basically that they are not being used.</li>
<li>Enjoyment. Lastly will they either enjoy doing it, or enjoy having completed the task, or enjoy the kudos of having been part of the process?</li>
</ol>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br /></div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-59886746463678067872012-04-06T09:09:00.000+00:002012-04-06T09:09:58.262+00:00The Psychology of Ambiguity 2: Ambiguity Bias<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOHHa3iWqf1d7EQrxv7skxd7xYattDUlqrg6KwEpOeTlGlrYR12ZHm4yItt5vRmMXMVkiR4Cgr2wBDefWSWgGcmzUrW3WQSYHdeI-LtIyWYMHuN4K9ggrLUzQoX_MOHcyyF28Y/s1600/choice.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOHHa3iWqf1d7EQrxv7skxd7xYattDUlqrg6KwEpOeTlGlrYR12ZHm4yItt5vRmMXMVkiR4Cgr2wBDefWSWgGcmzUrW3WQSYHdeI-LtIyWYMHuN4K9ggrLUzQoX_MOHcyyF28Y/s320/choice.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>You have a choice. You are at work and you have to make a business decision between 3 options each of which will take the same effort:<br />
Business Option 1 will almost certainly make you $10,000. It is quite likely (over 80% probability) this option will work and you will make the money.<br />
Business Option 2 could make you $20,000. However you no idea what the probability of this option working is.<br />
Business Option 3 could make you anything. You don't know how much it might make or what the probability is that it will work.<br />
<br />
You have to make a decision right now or option 1 will disappear. Which option would you take and why?<br />
<br />
The Ambiguity Bias or Ambiguity Effect is a bias where people are affected by the lack of information or the amount of ambiguity inherent in a situation. In other words most people tend to prefer known situations even though they might not be the most advantageous. People tend to prefer certainty over ambiguity.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">References</span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding (3d ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.</span></span></div><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ellsberg,</span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–699.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Frisch, D., & Baron, J. (1988). Ambiguity and rationality.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1,</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">149-157.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Ritov, I., & Baron, J. (1990). Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3,</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">263-277.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Wilkinson, D.J. (2006). The Ambiguity Advantage: what great leaders are great at. London: Palgrave Macmillian.</span></span><br />
</div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-26317592720270178512012-04-04T14:25:00.000+00:002012-04-04T14:25:18.836+00:00The psychology of Ambiguity 1: Cognitive Dissonance<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih9abP9EVvCBfst3nbZWHVN4sYcVPm84l2aAqsjoWrVC7VcjQFd6R4AQx5rp-SCQ8NcZOjIySeGxx76fWZE23qUp9HTjCZopeqM7lkVkCWOikln500lPnAvROEbowMQ0ylfyFM/s1600/Cognitive+dissonance.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih9abP9EVvCBfst3nbZWHVN4sYcVPm84l2aAqsjoWrVC7VcjQFd6R4AQx5rp-SCQ8NcZOjIySeGxx76fWZE23qUp9HTjCZopeqM7lkVkCWOikln500lPnAvROEbowMQ0ylfyFM/s320/Cognitive+dissonance.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">How do you react when faced with something that you don't understand and appears to conflict with what you already believe or understand to be the case? </div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">I was recently working alongside some emergency service leaders during a live incident (live coaching). One leader (Silver) was faced with a sudden and unexpected crowd of people moving into an enclosed area within which an operation was was taking place. As far as everyone had been informed this area was secure and no one, let alone a crowd should have been able to access it. The commander on the ground (Bronze) informed Silver (our leader) that approximately 40-50 youths had entered area without warning and the officers on the operation were facing public order situation on top of the existing operation that they were trying to execute. The Bronze commander asked Silver if they should abort the operation as they were heavily outnumbered. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Silver commander, who had planned the operation realised that if they withdrew they were unlikely to be able to go back at a later date and execute the operation. In short the operation would fail. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">He decided to order that the officers on the ground should continue as planned. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is a classic case of the psychological phenomenon of <i>cognitive dissonance</i> occurring in an unexpected ambiguous situation. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is a discrepancy between what a person believes, knows and or values and external evidence that is contrary or calls into question their internal beliefs, knowledge, experience or values.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This discrepancy between the internal and external state creates psychological and emotional discomfort, or dissonance. The mind then works to adjusts inorder to reduce the discrepancy and create order out of ambiguity. In many cases it does this by ignoring or reducing the importance of the external data and going with their existing beliefs, knowledge, experience or values as occurred in this situation. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Such a reaction maintains the principal known as <i>cognitive consistency</i> and reduces the cognitive dissonance. This is a typical reaction to ambiguity, especially under stress. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The outcome of the above situation is that the Bronze commander followed orders, the incident got out of hand, the operation failed badly and a number of officers and youths were injured, 4 seriously. </div><br />
<br />
</div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-76193637767331887642012-03-30T21:52:00.001+00:002012-03-30T21:53:46.949+00:00Are they making 'efficiencies' in your organisation?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB-IRe6qdOSkfM2r8mlC53W4722GonXff6hreycG7bSlSdR3mF_6iFoVDidOF0GtyCFI0ztmyPMFksC7sodkv_2Nl4D2Wo3_fuz9q2LBRY81bP4TqUG48DGbQNLP5zEog-9iBF/s1600/spiraltime.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB-IRe6qdOSkfM2r8mlC53W4722GonXff6hreycG7bSlSdR3mF_6iFoVDidOF0GtyCFI0ztmyPMFksC7sodkv_2Nl4D2Wo3_fuz9q2LBRY81bP4TqUG48DGbQNLP5zEog-9iBF/s200/spiraltime.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div><div class="p1">'Do more with less'. </div><div class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></div><div class="p1"><span class="s1">'Rationalisation'. </span></div><div class="p1"><span class="s1">'Making efficiencies'. </span></div><div class="p1"><span class="s1">'Being more effective'. </span></div><div class="p1"><span class="s1">'Streamlined'. </span></div><div class="p1"><span class="s1">'More businesslike and professional'. </span><br />
<span class="s1"><br />
</span></div><div class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></div><div class="p1"><span class="s1">Sound familiar?</span><br />
<span class="s1"><br />
</span></div><div class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></div><div class="p1"><span class="s1">This is the story in many many companies, organisations and services around the world. Certainly, in just about every organisation I step foot in at the moment I meet people who's work has 'streamlined' or 'rationalised'. The effect for most workers is that they have no 'spare' time. They are largely moving from one task to another, “back to back without the time,” as one employee told me this week “to even draw breath”. </span><br />
<span class="s1"><br />
</span></div><div class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></div><div class="p1"><span class="s1">As ‘spare time’ is eased out of the working day in the name of efficiency so does the ability to stand back and see what is really happening, to take stock of what is working and what isn’t, to get creative and dream (yes dream) up new ideas and have new thoughts and find better ways of doing things. To notice which tasks are really a waste of time and innovate. The very things an organisation under pressure needs the most. Odd that.</span></div></div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-39526250768677516772012-03-28T21:58:00.001+00:002012-03-28T22:11:56.246+00:00The principle of reciprocity between managers<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAdcY1NPX1w7-f4uIrmU1RHVPABV7UDjQVk6nS0RFoyv2Jb-NHORBnLWz9OobkakgMAnRSKm9qatN_9tUBYfWS9orqNAuT5OcGo4kImTTw0RZFe2qPviURujBcI0vuSQ6OWgpa/s1600/ManagerRels.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAdcY1NPX1w7-f4uIrmU1RHVPABV7UDjQVk6nS0RFoyv2Jb-NHORBnLWz9OobkakgMAnRSKm9qatN_9tUBYfWS9orqNAuT5OcGo4kImTTw0RZFe2qPviURujBcI0vuSQ6OWgpa/s200/ManagerRels.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>One of the principles I often bang on about in organisations or situations containing significant levels of ambiguity or uncertainty (<a href="http://ambiguityadvantage.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/what-is-difference-between-uncertainty.html" target="_blank">see the earlier discussion about the difference</a> between ambiguity and uncertainty) is the principle of reciprocity between managers.<br />
The relationships and levels of communication between managers is critical if an organisation or team is going to successfully profit from an uncertain or ambiguous situation.<br />
<br />
Fostering positive and professional working relationships between managers, looking for communication blockages and dealing with them and making sure there are active communications up and down the line are all part of this principle.<br />
<br />
The number of times I go into an organisation which needs help to deal with an uncertain or ambiguous situation to find that the managers, whilst often well trained as individuals, are dysfunctional as a group and certainly aren't a close knit team in themselves. Petty infighting, managers going it alone, lack of trust and less than helpful relationships within the management team will often de-rail any efforts to get them to navigate and get creative with ambiguity. My team frequently have to get the managers aligned and communicating before we can really get to work. In fact quite a bit of the <i>internal </i>ambiguity and uncertainty is actually created by the management of the organisation in many cases. Too little emphasis is placed on this principle in organisations. More should be made of this in appraisals and competency frameworks where they exist, and it should certainly be a topic of conversation with managers of all grades. </div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-45824056100840899602012-03-27T15:49:00.000+00:002012-03-27T15:49:40.137+00:00The 6 + 2 Psychological Factors of a Good Leader<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSwFys53U8vqp7IUHGtSzUki89sbv9KC7VHTDi7Jfi_TCCWwWHYQ3J-Z8Oo3_5rnh2_XyxH9JPJSUctcjJwTuD-ytOpxTJ5j5kHVF7h2T2g1-CmNgEbuum29HcKQzt7AT5_p-9/s1600/leadpsy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSwFys53U8vqp7IUHGtSzUki89sbv9KC7VHTDi7Jfi_TCCWwWHYQ3J-Z8Oo3_5rnh2_XyxH9JPJSUctcjJwTuD-ytOpxTJ5j5kHVF7h2T2g1-CmNgEbuum29HcKQzt7AT5_p-9/s1600/leadpsy.jpg" title="" /></a></div>There are a number of closely correlating studies examining the psychological factors which contribute to a successful leader. I have just completed a short meta-analysis research review for a client. I thought I would share an outline of the findings of the factors which correlate across most of the studies with a couple of trends in more recent studies.<br />
<br />
<b>The 6 Psychological Factors of a Good Leader:</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Decisiveness.</b> The ability to make <i>frequent</i> and <i>consistant</i> decisions. This includes the sub-factors of taking responsibility for their decisions, knowing and sticking to the principles and ethics driving their decision making. Decisiveness is often seen as providing clarity in uncertain situations.</li>
<li><b>Overall competence.</b> Good leaders are all seen as competent, not just as leaders but also within the realm they making decisions in. They are not just managing any situation but have competence in dealing with such situations and are perceived as having that level of competence. </li>
<li><b>Integrity or honest intent.</b> People follow and trust leaders who they believe have the best intent or purpose. Integrity and others trust are usually seen by people as part of the same factor. </li>
<li><b>Vision.</b> Often trotted out as a core leadership activity, vision in this case is the ability of the leader to project / articulate a clear, coherent and comprehensible path towards a meaningful goal.</li>
<li><b>Persistance.</b> Not only are good leaders clear about their goals they keep going and don't give up. This does not mean that they keep on regardless and there is a sub-factor of adaptability especially if a better way is found or the context/situation changes.</li>
<li><b>Modesty. </b>This is an interesting and surprising factor. Leaders who blow their own trumpet / feel the need to tell others how good they are are frequently associated with being a bad leader. Good leaders are seen as those who praise the right people and give credit to the team rather than themselves.</li>
</ol><div><b>Current emerging trends</b></div><div><br />
</div><div>Two additional emerging psychological factors which are cropping up more frequently in recent research are:</div><div><br />
</div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Adaptability / agility</b>. This is the ability to deal flexibly with rapidly changing situations and has the sub-factors of the ability to see change as it happens, the ability to hold competing perspectives and deal with ambiguity and rapid change.</li>
<li><b>Autonomy.</b> This is the ability to stand alone when needed and make their own mind up as opposed to following trends without critical appraisal. </li>
</ol></div></div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-20380664891070200922011-08-31T16:49:00.000+00:002011-08-31T16:49:37.751+00:00What is the difference between uncertainty and ambiguity?I am often asked this question, so in the interests clarity about ambiguity and uncertainty...<br />
<br />
Something is ambiguous if it can be interpreted or seen in more than one way. So for example a sentence in a job reference "you will be very fortunate to get this person to work for you" has a couple of different interpretations. Either the subject of this reference is very good or very lazy.<br />
<br />
Uncertainty on the other hand is any situation in which an individual has or finds doubt. So a situation could be uncertain but not ambiguous. People can have doubt about the most certain of situations and no doubt about an ambiguous situation. Uncertainty is then also a perception and an individual experience.<br />
<br />
Clear?Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-30647133490126611882011-08-02T09:38:00.000+00:002011-08-02T09:38:26.349+00:00On failing, learning and ambiguity<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4NBJXjP4tkURQ7yo0gZCiZqtf5rmsX6Fx2AFHzn4K4hV9SYXPaDMDAEyslDQZzf5wjqddiQZl73woFs84FD8rP4lG0J38Z0qH4sIJDCqs0aZ_E3RUWQecDR-T5mMHKvmmUgwm/s1600/failing-grade-m.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4NBJXjP4tkURQ7yo0gZCiZqtf5rmsX6Fx2AFHzn4K4hV9SYXPaDMDAEyslDQZzf5wjqddiQZl73woFs84FD8rP4lG0J38Z0qH4sIJDCqs0aZ_E3RUWQecDR-T5mMHKvmmUgwm/s320/failing-grade-m.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Different people I come across or coach have very different relationships with the concepts of failing, learning and ambiguity. It appears there is a relationship between a person's ability to deal with all three. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><b>On failing:</b> </span><br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">The range appears to be from people who in certain situations beat themselves up because they failed or something they were attempting failed. They have a negative emotional reaction to the failure which usually gets them down, for a period at least. This is the 'failure is a disaster / problem' attitude.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">At the other end of the spectrum is the 'failure is important feedback' attitude which we tend to find in successful entrepreneurs for example. This is often a sign of high levels of emotional resilience as long as it is real and not just "I'm saying because thats what I've been told is the value here" rhetoric, found in many organisations. You can tell the difference by the individuals longer term emotional reaction to failure. This end is encapsulated by the Thomas Edison quote </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><em>“I didn’t fail. I just found ten thousand ways that didn’t work.”.</em></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">The position in the middle of the range is the 'sh*t happens' attitude. Whilst this attitude often enables someone to move on, the learning is often minimal.</span></li>
</ol><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">An individuals</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> reactions are often situational, so a fail in one context or situation can be treated differently to a failure in a different situation (what's known as 'low emotional inertia' - more on this in a later blog), however we do notice trends. So a person who employs a genuine 'failure is feedback' mindset is much more likely to do so in a wider range of situations.</span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br />
</span><br />
<br />
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><b>On dealing with ambiguity:</b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><b><br />
</b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">There are is a similar range of reactions to ambiguity and uncertainty (they are not the same thing). Again these can be situational, however people who tend to deal well with ambiguity in one situation will often use similar strategies in other situations, but not always.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br />
</span></div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">At one end of the range we have people who don't even recognise ambiguities and uncertainties and when they do, spend a lot of time trying to make them go away or pretending and hoping they will go away. If the situation can not be escaped from these individuals will become highly stressed and will often have very negative reactions to the situation.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">In the middle are a set of reactions which can be summed up by shrugged shoulders and the attitude "well it may be ambiguous but hey what can you do about it?"</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">At the other end of the spectrum are the individuals who expect ambiguity and uncertainly. Their belief is everything, and I mean everything is uncertain. They tend not to get stressed by ambiguity, in fact prefer to work in ambiguous situations and jobs. It makes them happy. Why because its a licence to experiment, play and learn.</span></li>
</ol><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><b>On learning:</b></span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Similarly when we look at the range of the ability of people to learn, change their thinking and behaviour (called characterisation - a stable change) from situations we find:</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Psychological inertia - where people keep going with the same beliefs, values and behaviour even though the situation strongly suggests that doing something differently would be advantageous. Usually at this end of the spectrum there is a considerable amount of change blindness, where an individual believes things are just the same as before, they don't notice to cues that change has or is occurring.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">The middle ground where the change is noticed but this results in little or no change in thinking, beliefs or behaviour. Often referred to as stupidity.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">At the other end of the spectrum is a group of individuals who can learn readily, change rapidly in the face of change and adapt their beliefs to the situation, searching out what the reality of the situation is rather than imposing their reality on the situation. This is psychological agility. </span></li>
</ol></span></span></div></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">An attitude of the 'excitement of discovery' (the emotion is important) </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">coupled with the intellectual capability to be able to abstract or discern patterns or logical conflicts is the key to learning, dealing with failure, ambiguity and psychological and emotional agility. </span></div><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br />
</span></span></span></div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-62507537639572071782011-01-29T07:08:00.000+00:002011-01-29T07:08:06.858+00:00The Ambiguity Advantage - Audio from Cranfield School of Management<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJXWXZlYgx6c75ulJayGwjh_xSCjXaRrJTnoy59okT7FwKQnBl_AJE7Mo3iNdpl2KFTkvuk_RKMv9soMSXWw1p5-8ujpLQM0NbsNhsGaiHUHMKB7vpkPj5DQ52CdTCtEiREms5/s1600/Cranfield-logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJXWXZlYgx6c75ulJayGwjh_xSCjXaRrJTnoy59okT7FwKQnBl_AJE7Mo3iNdpl2KFTkvuk_RKMv9soMSXWw1p5-8ujpLQM0NbsNhsGaiHUHMKB7vpkPj5DQ52CdTCtEiREms5/s1600/Cranfield-logo.png" /></a></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXrBs4QaUb6DI5PGDKf7GLsYAft8fjmAFZYHBexCljKd7MhV0Fcm2vScOGIBeADUpRsxeOot3K__e3iC7dFU50ei4FYvdAargWWbwyV8OSPAO2rOXBTO1hmfGGkCfXqbHnK3Ib/s1600/5164AEJQNCL._SS500_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXrBs4QaUb6DI5PGDKf7GLsYAft8fjmAFZYHBexCljKd7MhV0Fcm2vScOGIBeADUpRsxeOot3K__e3iC7dFU50ei4FYvdAargWWbwyV8OSPAO2rOXBTO1hmfGGkCfXqbHnK3Ib/s200/5164AEJQNCL._SS500_.jpg" width="200" /></a>Cranfield have published an audio about <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ambiguity-Advantage-What-Great-Leaders/dp/1403987653">The Ambiguity Advantage: What great leaders are great at</a> and leaders dealing with ambiguity. <a href="http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/p15380/Knowledge-Interchange/Book-Summaries/General-Management/The-Ambiguity-Advantage-What-Great-Leaders-are-Great-At">Listen to it</a> here, or download it.<br />
They mix modes and types / styles of leadership. They are not the same. See an earlier <a href="http://ambiguityadvantage.blogspot.com/2008/12/note-about-systems-of-logic-or-modes.html">blog about modes here</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-54630983299856790962011-01-28T10:52:00.006+00:002011-01-28T11:23:14.944+00:00There is feeback and then there is FEEDBACK<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL7kp12lzyMsyowmY0eSYLNhd1mK5-qlQlzwuPImuqSBPZnpDopoLaSwYJ8oazG_MXlCx7KUcrH4St8wW0DlCmWooPP5cozmezumXwTBOaWAWLc-Ca1R3o_ppFXtL5_zWvZwie/s1600/i-love-feedback.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5567193583218618674" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL7kp12lzyMsyowmY0eSYLNhd1mK5-qlQlzwuPImuqSBPZnpDopoLaSwYJ8oazG_MXlCx7KUcrH4St8wW0DlCmWooPP5cozmezumXwTBOaWAWLc-Ca1R3o_ppFXtL5_zWvZwie/s320/i-love-feedback.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 320px; margin: 0 0 10px 10px; width: 247px;" /></a><br />
So leading on from the previous blog. What I was really interested in was the quality of the feedback given to an individual through the four conditions mentioned in my last blog.<br />
<div>Just to remind you of the four conditions of the test: </div><div><br />
</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #204063; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #204063; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">1. An online automated product which gets respondents to to fill in a series of 40 questions about the individual and included free text feedback items as well. The individual then gets an aggregated document with the feedback split into sections. They do not know who submitted what feedback.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">2. The pen and paper system was operated in two different conditions:</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">a. The first where the forms were sent direct from the respondent to the individual getting the feedback.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">b. In the second condition the forms were sent to a third party (the individuals coach) who then aggregated and anonamised the feedback.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">3. The respondents were interviewed face-to-face or over the phone by the individuals coach who then aggregated the feedback and gave it to the individual.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I then had the individual receiving and the respondents giving the feedback all rate (5 point scalar) the feedback in terms of:</span></span></span></div><div><ol><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Usefulness</span></span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Accuracy</span></span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Honesty</span></span></span></li>
</ol><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In reverse order the results are (drum role)...</span></span></span></div></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">2a where the forms were sent direct to the individual</span></b></span></span></div><div><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Receiver of the feedback: Usefulness average 2.1, Accuracy 2.0, Honesty 4.2</span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Respondents: Usefulness 2.9, Accuracy, 2.9, Honesty 1.8</span></span></li>
</ul></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">1. Online automated system</span></b></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #204063; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #204063; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><div><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Receiver of the feedback: Usefulness average 3.1, Accuracy 2.9, Honesty 3.7</span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Respondents: Usefulness 2.8, Accuracy 3.3, Honesty 1.5</span></span></li>
</ul></div></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">2b Where the forms went to the coach</span></b></span></span></div><div><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Receiver of the feedback: Usefulness average 3.2, Accuracy 3.5, Honesty 4.0</span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Respondents: Usefulness 4.2, Accuracy 4.1, Honesty 4.1</span></span></li>
</ul><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">3. Fact to Face interview with the coach</span></b></span></span></div></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #204063; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #204063; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Receiver of the feedback: Usefulness average 4.6, Accuracy 4.7, Honesty 4.6</span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Respondents: Usefulness 4.2, Accuracy 5.0, Honesty 4.9</span></span></li>
</ul><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I have all the tabulated data (sample size, conditions, frequencies, ranges, levels of significance etc) which I will post later.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So just looking at these figures there appears to be a clear difference between the way the feedback is </span></span></span></div><div><ol><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Collected</span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Given</span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Fed back to the individual</span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Received</span></span></li>
</ol><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In my next post I will discuss these results in greater detail. I'm off for a few days trying to get the next book in some semblance of order. Until then... </span></span></span></div></div></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;"><br />
</span></span></div></span></div></div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-89737797967142325312011-01-24T20:33:00.004+00:002011-01-24T21:09:05.697+00:00Split test of 360 degree feedback. Not all feedback is equal.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB0t55JzZjqUoFxZ3U7O08HwOjFStlINBnmeQC4DDPLBhTdXujYmEix5mt01v04ocO7XkERInigsLXJlvtpFxmVbZxntV_p-S2thzt_YoeI5T0JlI_Z4DM_WKSyqV0ZKg1mcQ5/s1600/feedback.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 212px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB0t55JzZjqUoFxZ3U7O08HwOjFStlINBnmeQC4DDPLBhTdXujYmEix5mt01v04ocO7XkERInigsLXJlvtpFxmVbZxntV_p-S2thzt_YoeI5T0JlI_Z4DM_WKSyqV0ZKg1mcQ5/s320/feedback.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5565856564330567890" /></a>I had the opportunity to test three versions of 360 degree feedback, using four different conditions in the last couple of weeks with some interesting results. The three versions were:<div>1. An automated online system</div><div>2. A pen and paper system, and </div><div>3. Interviews with respondents</div><div><br /></div><div>1. The automated product gets respondents to to fill in a series of 40 questions about the individual to get the feedback and includes free text feedback items as well. The individual then gets an aggregated document with the feedback split into sections. They do not know who submitted what feedback.</div><div><br /></div><div>2. The pen and paper system was operated in two different conditions. </div><div>a. The first where the forms were sent direct to the individual getting the feedback. </div><div>b. In the second condition the forms were sent to a third party (the individuals coach).</div><div><br /></div><div>3. The respondents were interviewed face-to-face or over the phone by the individuals coach.</div><div><br /></div><div>The respondents were told in all conditions that the feedback was in confidence and that the individual getting the feedback would not know who gave any particular feedback.</div><div><br /></div><div>The respondents were then interviewed after they had completed the feedback and asked how honest they had been, if they had mediated their feedback in any way and what considerations they made whilst answering the questions. </div><div>We then interviewed the individuals to get their view of the feedback they received.</div><div><br /></div><div>Results tomorrow...</div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-55322520134746376162011-01-23T09:02:00.007+00:002011-01-23T11:46:23.625+00:00Problem Solving and Mood<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2A6uDXU2TTeW7sotukCYf8ZfyEYj3nQYhTd6mtw8y1drKfazj1LUCaaIZc2tdH20rErMcLThgnEPPfGrEyaFaIZiWYS1vjIGkU4f5ecYuaUZcL7_Kvj6Qfij1FtOaAMVK6Kgs/s1600/emotions01.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 253px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2A6uDXU2TTeW7sotukCYf8ZfyEYj3nQYhTd6mtw8y1drKfazj1LUCaaIZc2tdH20rErMcLThgnEPPfGrEyaFaIZiWYS1vjIGkU4f5ecYuaUZcL7_Kvj6Qfij1FtOaAMVK6Kgs/s320/emotions01.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5565337830294281714" /></a><br />A couple of clients last week poked me and said. You must be busy because we haven't seen much from your blog recently. I have been working on a number of projects including the next book and a new academic post, however I will get back to this - now.<p>There have been a couple of interesting and interconnected pieces of research published recently about problem solving and emotion. Readers of The Ambiguity Advantage and clients I coach will know that one premise I work from is that every decision we make is emotionally based. There are a number of prices of research (especially current work using <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">MRi</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">fMRi</span>) that shows emotional parts of the brain kick in before the decision and the rational-logical areas get to work after the decision is formed. In other words we appear to make decisions based on emotion and then engage in post-decision rationalisation.</p><p>A paper actually published in 2009(1) has just hit the headlines (NY Times) in which it was found that positive mood and in particular enjoying comedy just before having to solve a problem increased insight problem solving ( just getting the answer as opposed to methodically working through the problem). Not reported but in the original paper was that the researchers found that anxiety depressed insight problem solving, so that individuals were significantly less likely to be able to just intuitively get the answer.<br /><br />There are quite a number of research papers showing similar findings, however what Is different here is that the researchers used <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">fMRi</span> to see the process happening.<br /><br />The second article (2) (awaiting publication), looks at using emotion regulation (the stuff I teach about emotional resilience) strategies when making risk decisions. They discovered that the use of such strategies not only helped the participants to make better decisions but they were also better able to workout which decisions were the riskier choices more accurately and mediate their response in the light of this. This meant that they were able to avoid the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">decisions</span> that could have more negative effects when engaging in emotional regulation activity then when not, especially under stress.</p><p>So what does all this mean? Firstly we are less likely to be able to solve problems with insight problem solving when anxious. Secondly when under stress we are not that good at discerning the levels of risk of a problem or ambiguous situation and are therefore likely to make a more risky decision <i>without knowing we are doing so</i>. </p><p>The ability to regulate our emotions is important in both cases. To 'up-regulate' for insight and regulate and therefore mediate the effects of anxiety and stress in any situation that contains ambiguity (I would argue all situations contain ambiguity) so we can better perceive the risks involved and reduce the negative effects that risk and anxiety have on our decision making capability. </p><p><br /><br /><br />1. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Subramaniam</span> K, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Kounios</span> J, Parrish TB, & Jung-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Beeman</span>, M. (2009) <i>A brain mechanism for facilitation of insight by positive affect.</i> Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2009 Mar;21(3):415- 432</p><p>2. Martin, L.N. & Delgado, M.R. (2011) The influence of Emotion Regulation on Decision Making Under Risk. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. Yet to be published - 2011 poss May/June.</p><p><br /></p>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-33726420601461970392010-11-27T12:26:00.003+00:002010-11-27T13:00:24.490+00:00Only one route?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF-KblJP5qDmk4v5d2sTbJlbAoUkv7TefBZMHdJl-uodU5mLgSQo1BWomDVndTJ1FAvbIzjbvelWDNRV4KGhxZYipYbqAMlxKQeerDyklR34R0qARshkwflrP6BLxgsqHeNVmL/s1600/crossroads.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 241px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF-KblJP5qDmk4v5d2sTbJlbAoUkv7TefBZMHdJl-uodU5mLgSQo1BWomDVndTJ1FAvbIzjbvelWDNRV4KGhxZYipYbqAMlxKQeerDyklR34R0qARshkwflrP6BLxgsqHeNVmL/s320/crossroads.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5544206353576099170" /></a><b>Decisions and results</b><div><b><br /></b><div>Everything we do is a decision, whether it is a conscious decison or not it is still a decision. Doing nothing or doing something else is also a decision. <div>Every decision we make whether it is conscious or by default, changes what is going to happen next and therefore is going to have an impact on whatever the outcome will be.</div><div>Complex? We have only just got started.</div><div>Now think about everybody else making decisions and how they interact and create emergent properties and situations. The current financial situation is one such emergent situation. No one (I hope) planned for this to be the outcome and yet it occurred - as a result of a complex matrix of decisions and actions people made.</div><div>What ever happens next will likewise emerge as a result of the complex interconnected web of decisions and actions we are all making right now. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>The problem with most strategies</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>As you can imagine with this level of complexity it is impossible to really predict what is going to happen in three weeks time let alone three years time. Most strategies are made based on history and our current understandings of not only what is happening but <i>how</i> things work.</div></div><div>As we are finding out, how things work now is not how they used to work, just like what is happening now is not the same as what happened before. Sure we can see the similarities, but it is different.</div><div>And yet, most strategies are singular. This is what we want, this is how we will get there and this is likely what we need. One goal, one route, one strategy.</div><div><br /></div><div>When I am working with clients I insist they do at least 5 strategies. One for the worst possible outcome and set of decisions/events. One for the best. One for average and two either side of the average, Quite good and quite poor.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is amazing how more inclusive the strategies become. However much more importantly, people can see how day-to-day decisions and emergent and unforeseen events are tied to emergent futures. How one decision can set a business or enterprise off on a particular road. This starts to help businesses do three things that are the mantra of Special Forces around the world:</div><div><ol><li>Adapt,</li><li>Improvise, and</li><li>Overcome.</li></ol>Who really knows what is around the corner? It is the most adaptable, creative and resilient organisations and people that win in ambiguous times. Having a flexible and <i>living</i> strategy that allows people to improvise, innovate and make good decisions is vital.<br /> </div><div><br /></div></div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-42647640491729016082010-11-08T12:08:00.001+00:002010-11-08T12:15:06.882+00:00A quote<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">"Ambiguity, risk and uncertainty scream out for their bedfellows; innovation, experimentation and play."</span><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /><div>David Wilkinson</div><div><br /></div><div>Author of 'The Ambiguity Advantage: What great leaders are great at.' Palgrave Macmillian </div></div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-59620504809914588272010-10-28T10:28:00.005+00:002010-10-28T13:52:02.506+00:00Strategic Planning: How far out? Are you serious???<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdTZ4EhhHBt3bKsE10euAZmu3o8EDfzjPLeZjDEVR4gZ26TVCGQhISHwPvk6nezQXRm4t4ANk8F0-r96rdw2fSYb4UpQ0lwbtpXC4nHeu1C4fdgB0fBZWC5EI5__9DXAFUwW-X/s1600/tourism1.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 313px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdTZ4EhhHBt3bKsE10euAZmu3o8EDfzjPLeZjDEVR4gZ26TVCGQhISHwPvk6nezQXRm4t4ANk8F0-r96rdw2fSYb4UpQ0lwbtpXC4nHeu1C4fdgB0fBZWC5EI5__9DXAFUwW-X/s320/tourism1.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5533042687068999682" /></a><br />I have been doing some work with a couple of clients around building <b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">a</span></i></b> strategic plan. Usually what they want is a business / corporate / organizational strategy for the next 3 - 5 years. I highlighted the word a above for a very good reason, which I will explain in a second. <div>However firstly I want to make comment about the concept of a 3-5 year plan, which is dear to my heart as my bank has just asked for one as part of our business plan. It's fascinating that organizations are still thinking like this.</div><div><br /></div><div>Two days ago I took a client to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. We went into the Egyptian section of the museum where the smaller exhibits are all laid out in chronological order. So as you progress around the room in one direction you find yourself going further back in time, or go the other way and you walk forward in time to more modern times. What we noticed was that from about 4000 - 3000 BC, so for over 1000 years there was little change in artifacts found. Most tended to be practical artifacts. Around about 3100 years BC saw the start of hieroglyphics and then things start to change. Much more art and religious objects start turning up. But again they stay fairly similar for hundreds and hundreds of years. Around 2700 BC saw the start of pyramid building. Again there were hundreds of years between real changes, but the changes were starting to occur quicker - a few hundred years as opposed to 7-800 years. </div><div>A nice example is the development of glass and the colour blue happen around 3500 and doesn't really start to change until 1500 when glass makers started to dip a mould into molten glass and start to turn it to produce vessels. Then developments start to move at a faster pace. Around about 1400BC they start glass blowing. As you stand in the room you can actually see technologies, thinking and development speeding up and the timelines between innovations and events getting shorter and shorter.</div><div>And so back to our strategic plans. 5 years ago everyone did 1,2,3,5 and even 10 year plans.</div><div><br /></div><div> The question I often ask now is "Tell me what is going to happen in your market / business in one years time?" I usually have the question answered with shrugs - "No idea". </div><div>"And you want a strategy for the next three years??" Most of us have a hard enough time understanding what is going to happen in 3 weeks time in our business let alone 3 years.</div><div>When I asked my bank manager what the markets will be like and what the bank would be doing in 3 years time a look of panic crossed her face. </div><div>What I have learnt is what I wanted or thought I wanted 3 years ago looks naive now, and given what has happened globally feels way out.</div><div><br /></div><div>The other point - going back to the red <b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">a</span></i></b> above. Most organisations develop a strategy, singular. One. Does one strategy really give you enough vision to make really good decisions in ambiguous times? More on this next....</div><div><br /></div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-43715270767378513972010-06-21T07:41:00.003+00:002010-06-21T08:01:57.042+00:00Emotional Resilience: with emotion<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgItFXp5LTOJJ2C4jMGSdyHoOBoyvCnnWC7U7B3uSwkVN_upRKfOV2a8c0fds0RmE9p_GBScjCA30lf53LRTZe5X6op5I3LbJqJLjwYaYNDAhwHOiu31i3t9aqjLX6IT57FqdIg/s1600/spock_kirk_320b.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 131px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgItFXp5LTOJJ2C4jMGSdyHoOBoyvCnnWC7U7B3uSwkVN_upRKfOV2a8c0fds0RmE9p_GBScjCA30lf53LRTZe5X6op5I3LbJqJLjwYaYNDAhwHOiu31i3t9aqjLX6IT57FqdIg/s200/spock_kirk_320b.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5485133997008644178" /></a><br />One of the areas I have been focussing on both in terms of work and research (there is another book on the way) is emotional resilience (we run <a href="http://www.fearcourse.com/">The Fear Course</a> in many UK universities). One of the most common misperception about emotional resilience is that it means people are able to do things like make decisions, deal with situations <i>without emotion</i>.<div>Cutting off from your emotions is not a useful trait, in fact it can cause many problems especially in leadership and management situations. Our perception of situations is as much the ability to be able to <i>feel</i> a situation as well as think about it. Our emotions and thinking operate together to give us a fuller sense of a situation and importantly for managers and leaders operate with <i>empathy </i>as well as ethically and morally in any situation.</div><div>Additionally an individual without emotion would have a sever problem with logic or reason. Reasoning requires a level of understanding of emotions. </div><div><br /></div><div>More on this soon.</div><div><br /></div>Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-44260902534856825142010-06-19T19:07:00.007+00:002010-06-19T19:44:05.314+00:00Facipulation...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_Hvse5AbqZKkK99Bc4eIxlSr-Q8rK1xOcxQXjS86ytOKlPUEh_SuSNigcV6xKva2WfWUQijfER8bPS0MfKdKXGcCnQEcL7ZvFbKLV_-f9XybsVq9rWGcQ6Eldvd2BikrKzhc3/s1600/human+puppet.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_Hvse5AbqZKkK99Bc4eIxlSr-Q8rK1xOcxQXjS86ytOKlPUEh_SuSNigcV6xKva2WfWUQijfER8bPS0MfKdKXGcCnQEcL7ZvFbKLV_-f9XybsVq9rWGcQ6Eldvd2BikrKzhc3/s200/human+puppet.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5484571322079353298" /></a><br /><div>Whilst coaching a client in the city this week, he made a comment that made me think. He was trying to solve an ambiguous dilemma, so I did what I thought all good coaches would do. Get the client to look at the problem from a whole series of different perspectives and to unpack their current problem solving approach on a non-agenda driven basis (from me). </div><div>Anyway at the end of the session the client said he had never had such a thought provoking 'workout'. </div><div>Now I don't say this for purposes of self-aggrandizement or self promotion. The issue is that the client has a regular coach (I coach for ambiguous and high emotional impact situations). It would appear that his regular coach moves him into a solution in what sounds like an 'I know best, this is what you should be doing', mentoring style approach. </div><div>So I did some checking with other clients who have coaches and it would appear that this is a very frequent approach taken by a number of performance coaches. One client sounded a little surprised at my questioning and said "Of course my coach facilitates me to the right solution, we pay them to give us good advice". </div><div><br /></div><div>I have seen similar approaches in workshops where participants are 'facilitated' to the 'right' answer according to the trainers. </div><div><br /></div>"Facipulation (v) - Using the tools and techniques of facilitation to manipulate a pre-existing and known outcome or solution in the mind of the 'facipulator' in a way that makes it look and feel like the 'facipulated' constructed their own answer."Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-55388343080672538782009-07-01T05:52:00.009+00:002009-07-01T06:51:27.072+00:00The 10 most predominant attributes of Mode II people<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj31mjSAwBR5x4YfSep5osQRuCrHZXf8U6RJ56fn4DVLx6gGcH0sdiy8qBDhixFg_ROi-FBEdpysUADF-MVMvcm3WrdWZfdNEBGZ_OfU2zyjcUv9g5lAP-93VkG7P0TdED_rvmd/s1600-h/cooperation-two-mules.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 194px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj31mjSAwBR5x4YfSep5osQRuCrHZXf8U6RJ56fn4DVLx6gGcH0sdiy8qBDhixFg_ROi-FBEdpysUADF-MVMvcm3WrdWZfdNEBGZ_OfU2zyjcUv9g5lAP-93VkG7P0TdED_rvmd/s320/cooperation-two-mules.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5353368505610241922" border="0" /></a><br />In terms of population distribution by far the most frequent group of people are mode two or co-operative people. Approximately 55% of the population have a tendency towards a co-operative thinking system (<a href="http://ambiguityadvantage.blogspot.com/2008/12/note-about-systems-of-logic-or-modes.html">What is a mode?</a>).<br />So what are the attributes of a mode two logic system?<br />1. The first thing of note about mode two or cooperative people is that they see value in other people. There is a realisation here that two heads are better than one and you need to work with people, a) to get things done, and b) to make things better. What underpins this largely is the mediation of risk. There is safety in teams. "If I make a decision on my own and it is wrong there is only one person at fault. If I make a decision based on a collection of others ideas that they agree with and 'we' are wrong, then that is less of a personal risk to me.<br />2. Democracy is the usual method of decision making here. Everyone has a vote and the majority win - except when they don't! Co-operative leaders / managers will usually reserve the right to make the final decision. This will in all likely hood be similar to the majority view but not always. <br />3. There is usually a collective wish / need to reduce risks as much as possible. So you find lots of structures like competencies etc. in mode two organisations as well as other risk reduction behaviours / thinking.<br />4. There is a distinct focus on task here. In mode two organisations the task is the focus. There is a little emphasis in modal mode two on process in as far as it effects the task. What I mean by this is that things like 'team building' and the reduction of conflict are highlighted activities in mode two environments. This is to ensure as far as is possible that the task gets done with the minimum of friction.<br />5. Friction is usually defined in this logic system as being anything or anyone that is percieved to get in the way of or slow down the completion of the task.<br />6. Cooperative problem solving approaches are the big feature here. Two or more people working together to solve a problem. It does not matter what the people involved believe, indeed people in this system are largely expected to work regardless of their beliefs. The prevailing thinking is, you are paid to work so work. If the people working together don't believe in the task they are just expected to get on with it, unlike as you will see mode three systems.<br />7. Using others as resources is really the name of the game - cooperate to get the job done. <br />8. As mentioned above mode two people really don't like conflict. In the workplace great effort is taken to reduce interpersonal conflict or better still to stop it happening. Conflict is seen as unproductive and an unnessessary distraction. It also (importantly) doesn't feel good.<br />9. Emotional resilience in mode two is pretty low to average to say the least. More about this in a later post.<br />10. Ambiguity and uncertainty is to be reduced. A lot of effort and money is used (often unsuccessfully) to make things simple and clear especially in mode II organisations. Ambiguity is seen as the nemasis of productivity.Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-69820970402402958642008-12-27T08:46:00.002+00:002008-12-27T09:22:16.506+00:00Mode one as followers and leaders - relationships<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyl_JCtlzX176hxDowdON97_MBPabiuf51Vo8FPCPGsLQ6fEOjsjGm-XraQEvybqbf2bs4Kf2T3Gns41B9q0alo914R5yx-mCO8qgTCVwdt6HgW8UX0IWgisz39x41SxCCYgRa/s1600-h/friends.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyl_JCtlzX176hxDowdON97_MBPabiuf51Vo8FPCPGsLQ6fEOjsjGm-XraQEvybqbf2bs4Kf2T3Gns41B9q0alo914R5yx-mCO8qgTCVwdt6HgW8UX0IWgisz39x41SxCCYgRa/s200/friends.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5284388738069678066" border="0" /></a>As followership and leadership rely on relationships in this blog I will look at mode one relationships from both a leadership and a followers perspective.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mode One Leaders</span><br />The key here is that mode one people do not like uncertainty or risk and that their reaction is to block it out in some way.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Mode 1 leader - Mode 1 follower</span><br />So if a mode one leader has a mode one follower or followers, in terms of relationships then the union is usually mutually happy - for a while. Both sides of this pairing are risk averse and will happily collude to make up their own versions of reality that exclude uncertainty (lots of structures and systems just to make sure) and reduce risk. If you need stability then a mode one leader will give you it - in bucket loads.<br />Problems, usually in the form of stress and blaming usually occur in this relationship when things start to go wrong (as they often will). Problems usually arise out of the fact that together mode one leaders and followers are the least likely to spot external changes and the most likely to keep doing the same thing regardless. In other words a mode one leader or manager with mode one followers are the most likely combination to fool themselves about what is going on. This is exacerbated by the fact that mode one leaders are very likely to recruit mode one people - diversity is seen as a risk. <br />On the other hand mode one leaders with mode one followers are most likely to have stable relationships with each other with little if any friction or conflict. In stable times, as long as nothing goes wrong and risk is low, then this is a happy and productive pairing.<br /><br /><br />However if a mode one leader has followers from other modes things will become problematic, with the paradoxical pairing of a mode one leader with a mode four 'follower'. I will look at these pairing in future postings as and when we get to the exploration of that mode.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mode one followers</span><br /><br />Mode one followers are largely passive and they want explicit direction which works well with mode one leaders who want to reduce risk and therefore give very detailed instructions. Problems arise when a situation moves away from the formulaic and require creativity and critical thinking. Their form of creativity is step-by-step slow and incremental change. Their form of logic and therefore critical thinking is control and risk reduction. They will work nicely in structured well defined situations. If you change this and ask for fundamental change quickly, denial will be the most likely initial response. Force it and stress and illness is likely to occur. This is a similar response if you ask a mode one follower to do anything that is ambiguous and not well defined.<br />They appreciate the structure of mode one leaders and suffer under mode two and three leaders. They can freak out under a immature mode four leader but work well under a mature mode four leader. I will go into these in greater details shortly as we get to each mode description.<br /><br />In the next blog I will have a look at mode two people.Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-42008140089879959392008-12-16T06:54:00.011+00:002008-12-22T20:11:50.888+00:00Mode one people - attributes<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY34j8aebM9rBZ6IYcXo-s8a_1WesdYZoG7hOGq_FE8IANox8zJ2Kcp1pE0vYX-GXs7dR25vuDYWbU6YLEUPTBRY4eehrKdOSUgK1zpvJBJq63EYhcjLUWUUidXVGNS2pVyjPN/s1600-h/geek_flow_chart_nyt.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 318px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY34j8aebM9rBZ6IYcXo-s8a_1WesdYZoG7hOGq_FE8IANox8zJ2Kcp1pE0vYX-GXs7dR25vuDYWbU6YLEUPTBRY4eehrKdOSUgK1zpvJBJq63EYhcjLUWUUidXVGNS2pVyjPN/s320/geek_flow_chart_nyt.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5280279004183240050" border="0" /></a>The first group of people I will look at as part of this series on followership and leadership are what is known as mode one or technical people.<br />The term technical leadership or followership comes from the thinking and subsequent approaches to problem solving that underpin and define this system.<br />Mode one individuals largely see the world as a series of technical issues that all have an answer. If you don't know the answer to a problem then someone else will. This is a world of experts and consultants, you just need to find the right expert to solve any problem. The view here is that everything has a well defined answer, you just need to find it. This approach is usually illustrated by 'flowchart decision making' with no shades of grey.<br />Mode one individuals (followers and leaders) tend not to entertain ambiguity and uncertainty easily if at all. The most frequent mode one reactions to ambiguity and uncertainty include:<br /><ul><li>outright denial of the situation,</li><li>create their own (usually imaginary) certainty / reality,</li><li>displacement behaviour aka do something else (normally something comforting).</li></ul>Mode one individuals (both followers and leaders) do not tolerate uncertainty and risk very well and operate to reduce these as much as possible, usually by resorting to methods of control.<br /><br />Mode one leaders are autocrats. Mode one followers are largely passive and dependent people who want to be told what to do and they tend not vary from the script. Mode one leaders and followers go together well. However if a mode one follower is under a mode two, three or four leader, the leaders would do well to be very explicit about what is required of them. They will see people from other modes as increasingly unstructured and dangerous or a least unsafe. These are not great people in times of change as they will fight to get back to the old certainty or fool themselves that things have not or are not changing.<br /><br />Mode one leaders in charge of organisations in times of change (like the current situation) are the number one candidates for loosing their business.<br /><br />Mode one followers are the most difficult (but not impossible) to get to embrace change. Both mode one leaders and followers can embrace change if handled correctly.<br /><br />A nice summary of mode one people:<br /><br />Good at<br /><ul><li>Following ‘characterised’ procedures</li><li>Making incremental changes</li><li>Postponing reward</li><li>Staying safe</li><li>Standardising procedures</li><li>Leading from the front</li><li>Detail <br /></li></ul>Struggles with<br /><ul><li>Risk & Ambiguity</li><li>Innovation</li><li>Diversity</li><li>Non standard thinking</li><li>Empathy and emotional intelligence / resilience (they can appear very resilient but this is only due to denial and displacement)<br /></li><li>Co-operation and collaboration</li><li>Strategic concepts (big picture)</li></ul>Here is a video example of mode one behaviour when faced with something different from a <a href="http://ambiguityadvantage.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-happens-when-authority-meets.html">previous blog</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://ambiguityadvantage.blogspot.com/2008/02/again-some-interesting-comments-from.html">Here are the distributions of modes</a> in the <span style="font-style: italic;">leadership</span> population.<br /><br /><br />Next I will look at mode two leaders and followers.Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24366125.post-21805655195869896142008-12-13T07:19:00.008+00:002008-12-13T08:06:53.692+00:00A note about systems of logic or Modes<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE7a-gUAFadNOTfCtnlkPSiXtGNniWLgRwssoZJ5wM66H-BtGjDcQZ5YcJyQENI_1VQ_PLYEEliDOI03uSaojnFy0l92QoB_0SuYVABAEGvaSFLslcjAKSKBakcpbSOssAyS1D/s1600-h/picture.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 318px; height: 387px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE7a-gUAFadNOTfCtnlkPSiXtGNniWLgRwssoZJ5wM66H-BtGjDcQZ5YcJyQENI_1VQ_PLYEEliDOI03uSaojnFy0l92QoB_0SuYVABAEGvaSFLslcjAKSKBakcpbSOssAyS1D/s400/picture.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5279179868408393538" border="0" /></a><br />I have been asked for a little more info about the concept of a mode.<br /><br />Whilst conducting research for the book ‘<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ambiguity-Advantage-What-Great-Leaders/dp/1403987653/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229155111&sr=8-1">The Ambiguity Advantage</a>’ I spent four years examining people’s reactions to ambiguous and uncertain situations. One recurring factor with people’s ability to cope with change is their ability to be able to cope with the ambiguity and uncertainty inherent in change. <br /><br />From this work it became apparent that the system of logic or perspective being used by any individual bounds and gives direction to their response. This includes how people respond in terms of their:<br /><ul><li>Cognitions</li><li>Emotions</li><li>Attitudes</li><li>Behaviour</li><li>Resilience</li><li>Perceptions<br /></li></ul>which are all guided and given direction by the system of thinking being used. Part of the thesis here is that the mode being used is created as a response to ambiguity, perceptions of risk or threat. I know this sounds negative, however threat (fear) is <span style="font-style: italic;">the</span> primal driver no matter how much we like it or not.<br />So a mode is a whole system of logic, thinking, perception, emotion etc. It is impossible to separate these out especially in terms of which is causal and which is an effect, which is why I describe them as a <span style="font-style: italic;">system</span> involving all these elements rather than a style.<br /><br />Next, I will look at the system of Mode one or technical (dualist) individuals. It's nice to be back!Platothefishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01991183238951380109noreply@blogger.com0