I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
Rudyard Kipling http://bit.ly/sGg5GC
In May's article, The Secret of Success http://bit.ly/rQUIqk , I discussed Albert E. N. Gray and his view that successful people have "formed the habit of doing things that failures don't like to do." If you have a tendency to pick the enjoyable tasks off your to-do list then how do you rationalise those choices? What excuses do you make to avoid doing what you don't want to do?
These excuses are simply examples of self-deception. Here's a few of mine!
- I don't need to do that today This might translate as, "It's not urgent", but might also indicate that there are other, more urgent or important things to be done first. If you really can potpone this task then postpone it (but see the comments below on progressing important, non-urgent work.) So when do you need to do it? Schedule it!
- The person I need to 'phone will probably be out So let's just call to find out! If you really know something about their working patterns then you probably know when they're likely to be in. Alternatively, you're simply justifying your reluctance to call, in which case it will probably help to plan what you're going to say: to the person you want, to their PA or colleague who answers or to voicemail. Rehearse it a couple of times and then dial.
- I don't feel like doing that now There is an argument for only doing certain things when you're in the right state. But that doesn't have to mean you just put them off until you feel like doing them. It's much better if you develop strategies for changing your state or for overcoming a negative one. To change state use the anchoring technique http://bit.ly/vsjE9I . To get past an internal barrier, make it easy for yourself, e.g. say, "I won't do the whole task now, I'll just spend 10 minutes planning it." More often than not, you'll get absorbed and suddenly realise it's almost done. (If this didn't work I wouldn't be writing this now!)
- It's not urgent, there's plenty of time If you're motivated by urgency then you've probably got used to doing things at the last minute. This might work quite well for you. Remember though, the urgent things aren't always the important ones so develop a habit of doing a little bit towards your important goals every day - even though there's plenty of time.
- I've got lots of other things that need doing For me, this is usually a sign of overwhelm. There's more to do than I can keep mental track of. We can only be consciously aware of about 7 things at once - everything else goes into the unconscious. So when I've got too many things "on my mind" I can't deal with them all. Problems keep slipping out of consciousness and then popping back in. This makes it impossible to focus on any one task. So nothing gets done. The simplest answer to this is to write a list, including everything you can think of, and then choose what to do first.
- It won't work so it's not worth starting Wow! The classic self-limiting belief, or self-fulfilling prophecy if you prefer. I'm sure you're ahead of me on this but here's the antidote anyway. What will you get out of completing this successfully? Is it something you really want? If so, how can you find out what to do and then how to do it? (Hint: someone else has already done this before.)
I notice that some of Kipling's "serving men" crop up in these discussions and you might be able to see where all of them fit in. The excuses you make are probably unconscious, habitual ways of thinking that you don't even realise that you have. And questioning yourself is a key part of breaking those patterns that undermine you.
So when are you going to start?
As dictatorships are overturned in North Africa and the Middle East and populations set about inventing new societies, I've found myself reflecting more and more on the principles of Spiral Dynamics. This is a theory of human development introduced in the 1996 book Spiral Dynamics by Don Beck and Chris Cowan, based on the theory of professor of psychology Clare W. Graves.
I heard Don Beck speaking on the subject some years ago and, in addition to the fascinating ideas he was putting forward, remember being very impressed by the fact that he'd been psychologist to the South African team that won the Rugby World Cup in 1995!
Spiral Dynamics argues that humans adapt to changing environments by developing increasingly complex conceptual models of the world and these are expressed in attitudes and behaviours. Several distinct stages in this development are identified in the book and given colour labels. They are graphically represented as being arranged in a pattern like a spiral staircase, and hence the name.
As well as applying to individuals, the stages also characterise whole societies. So, for example, the first level (beige) refers to groups that are dominated by nature and basic survival instincts. In contrast, the sixth level (green) is focused on community and personal growth, valuing openness and trust.
I'm not going to review the whole structure here. If you want to know more I suggest you start with this summary of Beck's book:
http://spiraldynamics.com/book/SDreview_Dinan.htm
What keeps coming back to me is Don Beck's assertion that moving up the levels is an adaptive process that takes time. In the course of a lifetime, an individual moves from being entirely survival and self centred to maybe reaching one of the higher, more "civilised" levels. It took thousands of years for human groups to take the same path for the first time. Now, we find ourselves spanning a range of levels and we perceive an urgent need to even things out. Leaving aside the massive question of how you decide who is at the "wrong" level, what exactly is involved in a whole society developing in this way?
An example given by Beck was that of Singapore which has an almost feudal, authoritarian structure despite interacting very successfully with western, liberal democracies. This system will evolve into a more sophisticated one, perhaps more to the liking of Europeans, only when it has created the necessary institutions and when a majority of Singaporeans have come to share the corresponding world view. No-one knows how long this might take and it certainly cannot be forced by outside influences.
So that brings us back to the "Arab Spring".
If a whole society is disrupted, leaving a crisis in the supply of the most basic necessities as well as a power vacuum, it needs more than an election to rebuild itself. Indeed, we observers expect more than just a re-creation of what went before, we want to see something better, more democratic, emerging from the ruins. Spiral Dynamics says that this can only happen if a majority of the people are "ready" for it and the means are available to create the necessary organisational infrastructure very quickly. So, if most people have no experience of living in a western-style democracy, it's very unlikely that they will spontaneously form one themselves. It's more likely that they will stabilise at a lower level than they occupied before. And their eventual development path may be quite different from the one followed in the industrialised west.
Within Spiral Dynamics, it's recognised that a range of levels of individual thinking will be present within any group. So, there will be many living through the traumas of post-dictatorship who are well aware of the complexities of nation building. Similarly, there are many within the relatively more stable, established societies of the world who have a very simple view of events. It remains to be seen how much influence they can exert.
As individuals we also display attitudes and behaviours characteristic of a range of levels. What we express depends on the situation, but what seems to matter is what is the highest level that we can assume at all. Then, you may see your own personal development as a process of moving up the spiral, continually expanding your conceptual framework.
So, is Spiral Dynamics a valid representation of human development? I have to say that it seems very patronising to talk of other people as being at a "lower level" than me. But I also know from discussions around this that we typically overestimate the level we are personally operating at, so maybe I'm completely misjudging people who are actually far more advanced than I am and I just can't understand their thinking!
How do you move higher when you can't even comprehend what the next level is? I think it must involve a series of "a-hah" moments that eventually combine to give you a whole new perspective. So it's important to keep an open mind and to stay receptive to new ideas.
Nothing's completely right or completely wrong.
Heard any good news lately? If there's any around then it's drowned out by the endless stream of reports about disasters, wars and economic crisis. How can anyone have any confidence in the future? And what's meant by "confidence in the future" anyway?
I'd say it's different from self-confidence, which is the belief that what I'm doing will work. Rather, it's the belief that what everyone else is doing will turn out well - for them, and especially for me.
But our greatest fear is usually of what others might do, not necessarily directly to you or to me, but indirectly - and no less seriously for that. The economy, the environment, the nature of our society; all of these seem to be in others' hands and beyond our influence. So, if it's all going to hell in a handcart, what are we to do about it?
Well, let me propose this: if you believe that things will turn out well then they are more likely to!
It may be easy to accept this in relation to things you're actively engaged in yourself. I think most people would agree that to approach a challenge with a positive attitude is likely to be more successful than expecting to fail. But how can it work in areas that you aren't directly involved in, the stuff that "they" do?
I suppose if you're alone in expecting the best then your influence may be insignificant. But part of this idea is that you expect many others to share your optimism and then that large number will affect how things develop through their opinions, behaviours and votes.
If you believe in a good outcome then your attention will be on making progress and making things better and so you exert a positive influence. And of course the other side of this argument is that if you expect the worst, and behave defensively, you make the worst more likely to happen.
So there is an argument for confidence in the future; it has a self-fulfilling character. And there's another benefit, and that is that it's much more enjoyable for each of us to feel confidence every day than to feel apprehension or fear.
This isn't to ignore "reality". Events playing out around you, and in the wider world, deserve your attention and often your intervention. The point here is about the expectations that underlie your actions.
In previous articles I've talked about the importance of having a compelling vision, an "idea of the future that is able to draw you towards it whenever you think of it. It's about how things will be; what it will be like to be there. It's about success." And, recognising that we all develop and change: "It's not fixed for ever. When you’ve started the journey you may find more attractive visions and then it's OK to change course. The important thing is always to have something to be moving towards."
So, confidence in the future comes from a sense of working towards something that you value. Fear of failure can prevent you from committing to a desirable vision of the future and so leave you with nothing to aim for. Yes, "failure" is possible because nothing is ever guaranteed, but if you maintain your belief that you're moving towards your vision then you can't fail. At worst, you just haven't got there - yet.
Presuppositions are powerful things. They are the unspoken, unnoticed beliefs that you hold which form the background to everything you say and do. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is the classic example of a question that presupposes that the other person is guilty, regardless of their answer. They don't have to be as obvious as that and they do save a lot of time. Imagine how long a conversation would take if you had to describe the whole basis of knowledge, experience and assumptions that underpinned every statement you made.
There's another kind of presupposition, and that's the very general kind that you adopt consciously and quite deliberately. Not necessarily believing them to be true in all circumstances (like a law of nature) but choosing to act as if they were true - because you believe that this works better most of the time. Examples of this kind of presupposition are:
Every behaviour has a positive intent
Everything anyone does makes sense to them
People make the best choices available to them
These three are related and express the idea that we all inhabit our own world and we can only do things which seem possible within that world. From that set of "possibles" we choose the best, positive option.
It's surprising how different someone else's world can be from yours or mine and I think this idea goes a long way towards explaining a lot of "irrational" behaviour. For instance, the recent riots in England have led to a debate about the appropriate punishment that should be meted out to the perpetrators. Now punishment historically seems to have two aims: deterrence and retribution. Leaving aside the question of whether society is ever right to seek retribution (are my unconscious presuppositions showing?) let's think about deterrence. This presupposes that the offender (and others thinking of offending) are capable of being deterred. That is, they are concerned about the consequences that they will suffer. And there has been discussion about individuals being "caught up in the moment" and therefore not completely in control of their actions. The implication is that they were temporarily blinded to the consequences of what they were doing.
Coincidentally, while all of this was going on, I was reading "Incognito", a book by the neuroscientist David Eagleman. He discusses the way that the structure of the brain affects perceptions of reality and how, among other things, damage to brain tissue can drastically change the subject's personality. For instance, they may begin to indulge in behaviour that they would have previously considered to be antisocial and unthinkable.
Even more significant in the riot context is the following:
"The main difference between teenage and adult brains is the development of the frontal lobes. The human prefrontal cortex does not fully develop until the early twenties, and this underlies the impulsive behaviour of teenagers. The frontal lobes are sometimes called the organ of socialization, because becoming socialized is nothing but developing circuitry to squelch our basest impulses."
David Eagleman: Incognito - The Secret Lives of the Brain
So, the possibility arises that some people, maybe not just teenagers, simply don't have the machinery required to recognise that certain impulses are "wrong" and to suppress them. (And that blindness to consequences might be a persistent state for some people.)
How do we now regard rioting youths if we presuppose the possibility that they weren't in control of their actions?
I don't know! We probably need a moral philosopher to help with that question and, in any case, it's way off where I wanted to go with this discussion. So, returning to more familiar territory, what can you or I do with these insights?
I'll offer one suggestion. When you next find yourself blaming another for something they've done, take a moment to ask, "What must the world look like from inside their head in order for them to think that it was OK to do what they did?" The glimpse into another world that this gives you will be illuminating - and probably quite disturbing!
One of the really hard things about moving up the management ladder in any organisation is to let go of what you love doing. You have to allow your team to take over and do what you, to begin with, could probably do better - and then to see them improving and overtaking you in terms of skill, speed and quality.
As their leader, you play a key part in developing those people - developing them to take on more and more of your favourite work and leaving you with "management". You have to keep quiet when they start to do things differently from how you used to do them. "I've got scars on my tongue through biting it all the time!" was what my boss used to say.
And it's actually worse than that. You put all of your energy into developing them, so that they can do great things, and then you have to stand back and allow them to take the credit!
This theme has come through time and again in coaching people in leadership; the need to let your team members put into practice what you've taught them and for no-one else to be aware of your contribution.
And it's very important to be recognised for what you've done. Most of us have this basic need for praise and reputation, often felt more strongly than the desire for monetary reward.
As a leader, you rely on your own boss, or "the system", to recognise your contribution in developing others. Sadly, this doesn't always happen.
If you work to improve your management and leadership skills, it's quite likely that you'll sometime find yourself in the position of being a much more accomplished manager and leader than your own manager. You may already be there. You may not (yet) have all of the knowledge and experience that they have, but you could be more skilled in dealing with people and empathising with them.
As an aside, this raises the possibility of "coaching upwards". If your own manager doesn't do "people" very well, then you can help them by demonstrating, whenever you get the chance, how you make an effort to see other people's point of view and talking through some of the questions that you ask yourself ("If I were doing that job ...", "If I heard this for the first time ..."). Eventually your thick-skinned boss might see how this can lead to better decisions and, particularly, more effective communication.
As your leadership role develops you'll find that you're increasingly working behind the scenes. Your individual contribution is less and less obvious but, hopefully, more and more important. This paradox is only a problem if it clashes with your personal needs.
And that brings us back to the familiar territory of values: what's important to you is what drives your behaviour, even if you're not conscious of its importance. If you reflect on how it feels when your efforts go unnoticed, or when someone else proposes your idea and gets more attention than you did, you'll get an immediate gauge of how important recognition is to you. You'll also be able to see to what extent your typical responses are driven by this need rather than by a desire to solve the problem or complete the task.
Sadly, you can't make others appreciate you or recognise your efforts. No matter how hard you work or how successful you are, in the end there may be no positive response from anyone. And whether anyone notices what you've done, or cares enough to acknowledge it, is always going to be up to them - their choice.
It takes some determination to carry on doing your best when there's no recognition. The temptation is to stop doing the things you know are important but aren't visible (like team development) and to focus on highly visible, short-term tasks.
But helping people grow actually grows you as well. I think that if you gain satisfaction from your proteges' success, rather than feeling jealous, then you'll want to support and encourage them more - making you a more effective leader.
It also makes you a grown-up!
I once coached someone who wanted to "have more confidence". We talked about the situations he was concerned about and then I asked him what were some of the things he wanted to be able to do that he couldn't do now. He answered, "I just want to have more confidence." We went round this loop a few times, always ending with the expressed desire to have more confidence. Eventually we moved on to practise some new behaviours. Predictably, this wasn't successful because we hadn't established what "confidence" looked, sounded or felt like to my client, nor what he would do with it if he had it!
What he was expressing was a belief, or collection of beliefs, that limited his range of possible outcomes. He "knew" that certain actions were impossible for him, either because he didn't know how to do them, and/or because he expected to fail or be embarrassed whatever he did.
"Confidence" is also a set of beliefs, perhaps one or more of:
If I keep trying I'll succeed in the end
I can't fail
Anything is possible
Failure isn't important
If it doesn't work it won't kill me.
Some people will tell you, "There is no failure, only feedback". Very easy to say, but sometimes things turn out in a way that really feels like failure! It's true though that the process of learning involves trying things out before you've mastered the skill. It's the only way you'll ever master it! So, many times, you won't get the result you want. That's feedback, telling you that the way you did it that time was ineffective and so you need to try again - differently.
How do you avoid the feeling of failure?
Maybe one way is to get into the habit of thinking about those risky, new things that you're nervous about doing as experiments: try something - see what happens. This is very different from "decide what to do - do it - succeed or fail". You can dissociate yourself (your identity) from the outcome if you choose to!
Sometimes it's not the outcome that worries you but the actual doing. The result might be highly desirable and perhaps even certain - if only you could do what you know you should!
What are you afraid of? Is it a genuine threat of real harm? Or is it a phobia (an irrational fear of something that can't actually harm you)?
We're not concerned here with activities that carry a high risk of physical injury, rather those things that carry an emotional risk. They are usually things that many other people do without hesitation or any apparent effort, as in these examples:
Public speaking: you're probably not concerned about whether your presentation or speech will have any impact (the outcome), rather you're afraid that you'll make embarrassing mistakes in the delivery
Conflict situations: you avoid these because you feel intimidated, not because you're worried about a failure to resolve the situation.
Are you happy with yourself as you are? If you could change yourself, what would that new person be like? What resources would you have?
Your "most resourceful self" is the person who has all of the knowledge and skills needed to live life to the full and to take full responsibility for it. It's the person you want to be.
Perhaps you have an image of yourself that's not resourceful. You may see a person who's fearful and ineffectual. If that's the case then take some time to reinvent yourself by re-drawing that self-image. Imagine how you would look if you were that resourceful self. How are you standing? What are you wearing? What expression is on your face? How does your voice sound? Create the most detailed image you can of that perfect version of you. Then - step into it! Imagine yourself merging with that other you and becoming them. Feel the buzz of confidence!
Once you've created the image of your most resourceful self you can bring it to mind and step into it whenever you want to. Then you'll be a person who can separate themselves from what they do. Some of the things you do may fail to deliver what you wanted, but you won't fail.
We all doubt ourselves from time to time so there's nothing unique in feeling that. What makes the difference is whether you know how to get past that doubt and run the next experiment - just to see what happens.
For more on this topic, and some highly effective techniques, see my e-book "Confidence".
What happens if you've achieved everything you want to by the age of 30? Won't you get bored?
The age of 30 is a long way behind me now, and the only goal I can remember having at that time was to give up smoking. I managed to do that and so, in a sense, I had achieved everything I wanted. Not through spectacular success, rather by virtue of not really wanting very much. I suppose there must have been many material possessions I would have quite liked to have, but nothing I felt inclined to make a special effort for. It seemed that if I went to work and did my best then things would just come to me, eventually.
Looking back, I can see that I was successful enough just doing the things I enjoyed doing.
Fast forward about 25 years and I came across something that made the whole "success" thing very clear. It's a speech that's even older than I am - made by Albert E. N. Gray to a conference of insurance professionals in 1940. The key idea is summarised as:
"The common denominator of success - the secret of success of every man who has ever been successful - lies in the fact that he formed the habit of doing things that failures don't like to do."
It still feeels like a punch in the stomach to read that - because I still judge tasks by the extent that I might dislike doing them and hardly at all by what I might gain through them.
At least these days I know that I do this and can most times stop myself from falling into the trap of creating a rational argument for not doing what I might find distasteful or frightening. Then I can focus on building up my "towards" motivation by imagining the pay-off and enjoying what it will feel like. After that I'm able to put effort into learning how to do what I couldn't previously see myself doing. Or, getting somebody else to do it for me!
The first step always is to commit; to do something that makes it easier to continue than to stop. Typically this would be to tell others what you're doing or to place an order or to sign up. When the cost, inconvenience or embarrassment of cancelling outweighs the effort or discomfort of carrying on then you move forward to the next step. The added bonus of commitment is that you begin to notice the opportunities and sources of assistance that were always there but invisible to you.
If you've ever been in this state of comfortable drifting, you'll know that something has to happen, or to change, to make you take action and to commit yourself to doing what you don't like to do.
For me, avoiding the things I didn't like to do lasted a long time. So what changed and convinced me I needed to do something else? Well, there was a little bit of concern for doing something with my life as well as a sense of running out of time. But in all honesty, I think what really shifted me was that I wasn't enjoying it any more. Then my "away from" motivation came into effect and I felt compelled to move on. Of course I had no idea where I wanted to move on to, which is another story ...
To return to the original question, what happens when you've achieved everything you want? Well, if your main motivation comes from a desire to succeed then the question never arises because you habitually look for what you haven't already got. If you're more concerned with enjoying what you're doing then you may feel comfortable and self-satisfied for a long time, but eventually you'll become dissatisfied and will need to get away from where you are.
Either way you have to set new goals. There is no state of final, complete fulfilment, only the journey towards it. Or, as Robert Louis Stevenson put it, "To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive."
