Change Work - Leadership and Personal Development

Six deceiving men

2011-11-28T02:41:00.000-08:00

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?

Moving on up

2011-10-27T08:18:00.000-07:00

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.

Que Sera, Sera?

2011-09-27T10:11:00.000-07:00

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.

Welcome to my world

2011-09-06T05:48:00.000-07:00

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!

Credit where it's due

2011-07-25T09:54:00.000-07:00

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!

Who dares wins

2011-07-01T07:05:00.000-07:00

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".

The secret of success

2011-05-23T07:40:00.000-07:00

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."

It's a Wonderful Life

2011-04-28T02:28:00.000-07:00

In the USA, everyone has the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". In the UK, whilst our our lives are pretty well protected and we're comparatively free, we haven't concerned ourselves much with happiness. But all that's going to change!

"Well-being" is the new goal and the Office for National Statistics has been charged with the task of monitoring how good we feel. Government policy will then be guided by this measure with the aim of increasing well-being.

A recent paper* from the Institute of Economic Development (IED) reviews the evidence for how economic factors in particular affect perceived happiness. For example, it seems that increasing income makes us happier up to a limit, beyond which it makes no more difference. For most of us in developed countries, we're more concerned about our relative income: how rich we are compared with others around us.

And not surprisingly, one of the biggest negative factors is unemployment, and your drop in life satisfaction if you lose your job will be disproportionately greater than loss of income alone would explain. Related to this, if you have a job, your perception of how safe it is will strongly affect your well-being.

These factors lead to the paper's first two policy objectives that government should be pursuing:

1. A decent income for everyone

2. Secure, full employment
Nothing new there and nothing that any government (in a democracy) wouldn't sign up to.
The other four objective are a bit different though:

3. Stable communities and work spread throughout the country
The opposite of "get on your bike" to find a job!

4. Satisfying work
Feeling "lucky to have a job at all" is no longer enough. Presumably, even the lowest paid jobs should still be satisfying to do - although they won't be that low paid on account of the first objective!

5. Work in the right quantities
If working hours are too long then well-being suffers. (I wonder if this is true when the work is truly satisfying.) But whether you enjoy your work or not, having enough free time is clearly important if you're going to engage with your community and take part in the "big society".

6. An economy that encourages people to do things rather than passively consume things
This seems to be about generally spending our resources on things that are good for us, emotionally as well as physically.

The first two of these objectives can, in principle, be put into quantitative terms: how much income is "decent", how many jobs are available, etc. But in contrast, the last four involve some very subjective measures. They relate to how people experience their lives, as opposed to how their lives actually are.

What's the difference?

Well, although the objective circumstances you find yourself in at any particular time influence how you feel, they don't determine it. Different people will experience similar circumstances differently. All of us will experience similar events differently at different times. It really does depend on how you look at it!

So how might the IED's last four objectives be approached? How do you ensure that communitites are stable? What exactly is satisfying work? What is the right amount of work - and is it the same for everyone? How do you encourage people to "do things"?

I'm looking forward to a lot more discussion of these questions and to a lot more measurement of factors affecting well-being. And may I suggest that we need a lot more awareness - perhaps through education - of how to manage ourselves, so that we can experience "wellness" in most circumstances?

Perhaps we've got things the wrong way round. Perhaps the ideal circumstances that the IED describes can only be created by people who already feel well most of the time. If we wait for government to make things better we'll wait a long time with no guarantee of a better experience at the end.

* "Will measuring well-being change the way we develop the economy?" - Charles Seaford
http://www.ied.co.uk/images/uploads/Critical_Issues_WELLBEING_Issue_2_.pdf

Who are you?

2011-03-25T09:08:00.000-07:00

In the UK we've just received our census forms. Every householder is required by law to complete the form and return it. We're surveyed in this way every 10 years and the information collected becomes the basis of all kinds of government policy and planning. For historians, particularly those researching their family or community histories, past census records provide a valuable and fascinating snapshot of the people who lived in particular places at specific times.

The basic information consisting of name, address, occupation and family relationships also serves, in a sense, to define people. And the new crime of "identity theft" illustrates that the same information, along with bank and credit card details, is so important today that it's worth stealing!

But your personal data really only defines what you have, and perhaps what you do, and doesn't really relate to who you are.

So what makes you you?

Well, thinking back to last month's article, there's your genetic makeup that determines how your physical body develops. It may also influence your mental and emotional development to some extent. But I maintain that genetics can only be a minor factor in defining the "person" that you are. Much more important is the accumulation of many experiences that has built up through your life and how you've organised them into your internal map of the world.

All of this has led to your current set of values, or what's important to you, and your beliefs, or what you assume to be true. And these are the core of what it means to be you.

So you were never pre-destined to turn out the way you have. You're not the person you were born to be, with no possibility of being any other way. You're the product of a lifetime of doing the best you could in the circumstances you found yourself in.

So, you weren't defined by your genes, but nor were you the helpless victim of a chaotic existence. You always had choice, although it may not always have seemed that way; because your choices are restricted to what you believe to be possible. For many people, what's possible equates to what they know, and they rule out (without any conscious consideration) taking any path that's unknown. In practice, this means any path they haven't taken before.

In contrast, people who are in control of their lives can commit to goals that they don't already know how to achieve. They believe that they'll find a way and aren't afraid of uncertainty.

In fact, it's never certain how things will turn out. If you're only comfortable when you can see every step along the way, then you'll either be going forward uncomfortably or not moving at all. As someone said, "If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster!"

So how can you break out of this cycle?

Well, as with planning any journey, you first have to know where you're starting from. Who you are, embodied in your values and beliefs, is your starting point and it's well worth the effort to explore these - and they may not be quite as you thought or wanted. Crucially though, you're not stuck with them for ever! Beliefs can certainly be changed and even values can if they need to. Like everything else, it's just a matter of knowing how.

But changing who you are is simply the next phase of your journey. There's no magic wand, just a process of gaining new experiences that overwrite the old ones in your map of the world, making choices that lead you towards who you want to be.

So how are you going to expand your range of choices and make the impossible possible?

One step at a time

2011-02-22T02:41:00.001-08:00

Before I get into this month's message, I hope you'll allow me a brief digression into science - with apologies to any molecular biologists out there!

In his book "The Greatest Show on Earth", Richard Dawkins explains (in layman's terms) how the genetic code actually gets translated into a living organism. He points out that DNA isn't a "blueprint" in the sense of a complete description of the full-grown body of the human, the cow or the pigeon. Rather it determines the sequence of events that occur in the development of an embryo. And that sequence has many steps so it can lead to a very complex result, even though each single step obeys "local rules".

Dawkins likens this to a "recipe" rather than a "blueprint". By analogy, each step in the recipe for making a cake is relatively simple, only involves a small number of ingredients and only makes sense in relation to where you are in the process (you can't beat the mixture after you've baked it!) Also, if you'd never seen a cake before, you wouldn't be able to get a very good idea of the finished article just from reading the recipe - unlike a blueprint or design. Similarly, DNA is the recipe for making a living organism and it's impossible to know exactly what it will make without carrying out the process.

And this way of looking at embryos (or cakes) explains how a small error can have very significant consequences.

So what has all this to do with management and personal development?

Well, I was reminded of it when I was thinking about individual "change" and particularly about the extent to which you can plan your life - or rather the extent to which you can actually carry out a life plan. The recipe analogy seems appropriate in that the result isn't guaranteed because you can't control every aspect of materials and process perfectly. So, in planning your life, you're not really designing the finished product, rather throwing things into the pot and stirring!

And while it's often said that if you keep doing the same things you're likely to get the same results, I think it's also true that in seeking to redirect your life, small changes can have large consequences. If so, then what you have to do to make a difference may not be as big a thing as you perhaps thought.

But have you lost the ability to try new ingredients? Different methods?

Some people approach life as an experiment - always trying new things, just to see what happens. Many, perhaps most, are much more risk-averse and want to know exactly how things will work out before they press the start button. But that certainty is usually unattainable because they can't control every detail of what happens. So life is actually a kind of experiment, and how you experience it depends on whether you're trying to control it or looking for change.

If things are so uncertain, what then is the point of having goals or a vision? Well, I'd say that it's really about motivation. You need something to aim at, something to draw you, to inspire you otherwise you'll sit back and let things happen. And what that means in practice is that you make yourself available to help fulfil somebody else's dream!
But there is a problem with setting awesome, inspiring goals. They can seem so daunting, viewed in their entirety from the beginning, that you can't imagine ever getting there. But really all you need at any moment is the next step in the recipe!

So, the ideal programme for life planning would have a simple structure and break down easily into bite-sized chunks. It would define the end point - whatever it is you want out of life - and also map out the whole path before putting the emphasis on tackling each step, one at a time. And providing the tools and techniques required for that step.

By a happy coincidence I'm currently working on that very thing! A modular programme based on the "4 Blocks" idea I've described in past newsletters (Values, Vision, Purpose, Goals). I'll be launching it in the March edition of "Change Work".

Meanwhile, if you already know what you want but don't believe you can get it, why not just break the first egg anyway?

A definite maybe! - Know your Convincer Strategy.

2011-01-24T02:21:00.000-08:00

Isn't this a great time of year? January's nearly over but there's still most of a new year ahead of us, so it's a time for optimism, for new starts and for new goals. Maybe you experienced a sense of running out of time as the old year drew towards its close, of not being in control of events. Now it feels like that's all over and you're back in the driving seat. Above all, there's choice: of goals, of priorities, of direction. And choice is the key to well-being.
Now, given a choice of directions to set off in, how do you decide which to take? Or, offered a choice of political, philosophical or moral alternatives, how do you know what's right? What internal process do you follow to make up your mind about anything?

Before tackling that, let's just look at some basic ideas about thinking and senses.
I've previously written about "representational systems": the different ways in which people think. These reflect the different sensory channels through which we receive information about the world. Those channels are visual, auditory and kinesthetic. (For simplicity I'll relegate the gustatory and olfactory senses to sub-types of kinesthetic.) So, for example, the visual representational system consists of mental images, either created from sensory data (things you've seen) or created by your imagination. Similarly, the auditory system generates internal sounds and the kinesthetic generates touch (taste, smell) experiences.
There's also a fourth system that is not related to any sensory channel. It's sometimes called "digital" and consists of abstract concepts and logical connections.
We all tend to have a preference for one, or maybe two, of these systems. So, perhaps you tend to think mostly in pictures. You understand things quicker and more easily if you can see them. You probably draw diagrams to explain your ideas to other people. You tend to use visual references in your speech: "I see what you mean", or "Look at it this way".
And you probably find it difficult to believe that some people don't think like that. They actually tend to think in sounds! They can tell from the characteristics of a friend's voice on the 'phone what emotional state the friend is in.
Others translate everything into kinesthetic form and "feel" their way around situations and ideas. For them, the internal sensations they experience in response to visual or auditory stimulus are just as real and intense as those that result from touching a hot surface or banging a knee on a chair. It's no coincidence that we refer to emotions as "feelings".
My preferred representaional systems are visual and digital. I find telephone conversations hard work because I'm starved of visual information. My unconscious mind fills the gap by making it up! That's OK if I'm talking to a friend and I know the place they're calling from. With a stranger though I formed the habit long ago of imagining an unfriendly person who was annoyed by my interruption. Needless to say I've worked on changing this and it no longer dominates - although I still catch myself doing it on occasion.
Going back to how you make choices, how you know what's right, it probably won't surprise you to learn that representational systems are involved! Typically, one of them will be your "convincer". You'll have to see it, hear it or feel / do it to believe it.
I always considerd my convincer to be primarily digital. I accept things that "make sense" and often use that phrase. I also talk about things "looking right" or I say "I see what you're saying" (because I actually do "see" words!) but it's logic that settles the issue for me. (And I have to admit that the idea of having a digital convincer appeals to my intellectual conceit!)
The trouble with this reliance on making sense is that it's often written on water. A new piece of information can completely change the conclusion. So my certainties change all the time. I see both sides of the argument and tend to favour whoever spoke last!
(Sorry if you've heard this one before but there was once a theoretical physicist who took a call one evening from his colleague, an experimentalist, who was working late finishing an experiment they'd planned together. "It worked", he said, "we found A is clearly greater than B." "Oh that's completely understandable", replied the theoretician, "my theory shows .." His colleague interrupted, "Sorry! Did I say A's greater than B? I meant to say B is greater than A!" "Oh right", said the theoretician, "That's even more understandable ...")
So, certainty based on logic, on digital thinking, is only as secure as the data it's based on. And that's usually incomplete and often wrong.
And yet, there are some things I just know are right. Beliefs about good and bad for example. These stick, even in the face of much contrary evidence. And their strength comes from being rooted in my kinesthetic system, in "gut feel".
Now I've already said that I primarily think visually and digitally. I ignore the kinesthetic channel. So how do I ever get enough gut feel to be sure of anything? Well, the truth is I hardly ever do!
Is it like this for you too? Or do you quickly come to a firm view on anything? As always, there are pros and cons to whichever pattern you follow. Most important though is to recognise that there are different "convincer strategies" and that you'll meet people every day who don't use yours!

The joy of giving?

2010-12-21T02:39:00.000-08:00

It should have been the busiest time of the year at Father Christmas Ltd (Lapland Factory), but all was silent. The Elves were on strike!

Mr Claus the MD ("Big Daddy" to his staff) had announced that there would be no bonuses paid this year "due to the cuts". But everyone knew it was really to do with the bad publicity he'd been getting about his "fat-cat" lifestyle. He was reacting by putting the screws on everybody else!

So the Elves had downed tools and were refusing to make a single toy until Big Daddy relented. BD responded by accusing them of "holding innocent children to ransom".

It was stalemate.

Then one of the Elves knocked on BD's office door. It was Engelbert Unterknocke, one of the longest-serving workers from the clockwork train department. Engelbert was an eternal optimist. He saw opportunity in the worst of adversity. His fellow workers laughed at him and thought he was a mug for believing all of Big Daddy's promises and for seeing the best in everyone. But he was actually very shrewd and could see exactly what was going on. He just preferred to look on the bright side.

"We've got to get things moving again or you'll be late with your deliveries this year," he said to BD. "I know," wailed the old man, "but what can I do? They all seem to hate me these days! What's happened to loyalty?"

Engelbert bit his lip rather than comment on who might be lacking in that department. Instead he climbed up to stand on a chair so he could look down on Big Daddy. In a firm, no-nonsense voice he said, "OK Big D, here's what you must do."

*************

Engelbert found Hans, the General Secretary of the Christmas Workers and Allied Trades Union, sitting on a packing case composing a letter to Big Daddy. "Hello Eng," he said. "I'm just drafting our ultimatum. I'm going to demand an immediate bonus payment and a pay increase. I know we won't get either but we need to keep the pressure up."

"Hmm, do you think the lads really want to push things any further?" asked Engelbert. "I think they mostly feel a bit sheepish about all this. They all enjoy their work and Big Daddy has always looked after them in the past. They know that business is tough and that Big D wouldn't try to cheat them. They're just upset about the lack of consultation."

"I dunno, there's real anger ..."

Engelbert pressed on, "Now, I think Big Daddy is ready to compromise and give you anything that doesn't bankrupt the company. So now's your chance to get all those benefits that you've been chasing for years. You can back down over the bonus and still look like a hero!"

Hans looked at Engelbert suspiciously. "What? You mean the free cocoa at break time?"

"Yes, and all the other things as well. Look, here's a list, and I've had a word with the Goblins in Accounts ..."

*************

Big Daddy gave the good news in person. Cliff Richard was singing "Mistletoe and Wine" over the tannoy as the Elves gathered in the workshop for the hurriedly arranged meeting.

The announcement of an extra 3 weeks paid summer holiday caused quite a stir. But what really turned things round was the launch of a job-rotation scheme that gave all of the Elves a chance to train for different roles in the factory. This had been a longstanding source of dissatisfaction as it seemed that "favourites" were getting the best jobs. Now everyone was to be treated the same. And the suggestion-scheme was being re-vamped to pay a significant reward for ideas that saved money or increased productivity.

Cliff was cut off in mid-platitude to cheers from the Elves, who then spontaneously burst into singing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" as they danced around Big Daddy. The old boy didn't know what to say. A tear rolled down his rosy cheek. His voice cracked as he tried to thank them. "Th-uuu-uk-ooo", was all that came out.

The Elves cheered some more and then turned back to their workbenches with renewed purpose. Soon the sounds of industry filled the air. Toys, novelty knitwear and carpet slippers were flowing into the warehouse once again.

Big Daddy looked on benignly. He patted Engelbert, standing next to him, affectionately on the head as he remarked, "Sometimes I surprise myself Engelbert. I don't know where these ideas come from. It's just good old management experience I suppose."

"Or something ..." murmured the Elf, under his breath.

To boldly go ...

2010-11-22T03:39:00.000-08:00

Imagine you're planning a day's walk in mountainous country - an area that you've never visited before. You set your sights on the nearest peak. It looks a bit strenuous but perfectly doable. Certainly much easier than the higher, more distant summit that you know lies beyond. You set your pace to arrive at the top around midday, leaving plenty of time to get back. It all goes smoothly and easily, just like the many similar walks you've taken before.

You only looked at the map of the immediate area because that's all you needed to know about. What you didn't realise, and may never know, is that if you'd turned the page to check the route to the more distant peak you'd have discovered the railway station situated just beyond the first hill and the promise of a ride to the top of the big mountain and all the way back as well!

OK, so that's a bit of a contrived story to illustrate how setting an "impossible" goal causes you to take a different perspective from which everything, of course, looks different. And it might make you wonder how many once-in-a-lifetime opportunities you've missed because you ruled them out before you even started to look at the path towards them.

To do great things you first have to think great thoughts.

"Yes, under normal circumstances", you might say. "But times are hard and we've all got to be realistic and to scale back on our plans."

But what does the economic slowdown actually mean for most of us? For years I was considerably poorer than I am now. It was what I expected as I was establishing myself in the world of work. I lived within my means but the outlook was positive. I expected things to get better - and to keep getting better indefinitely.

If I have to manage with less money than than I'm used to, it will be no different in practical terms from how life was in the early years of my career. What's changed are my standards of what's acceptable and, perhaps, my expectations about what's coming next.

I could get used to having fewer material comforts but I can't do without hope for the future.

(I know that for some people the impact is much more severe - and I'm not addressing what it's like to be bankrupt and/or homeless - just the majority for whom the recession is causing changes of degree not of kind.)

So what might it look like to set "awesome" goals in times of economic and psychological depression?
The simple answer that I've heard a few times lately is, "Don't participate in the recession!" Just do what you'd do in more bullish times. But how, exactly?

Well, one strategy you might consider is to control the inner voice that keeps telling you to exercise caution and buries your optimism before you've had a chance to "look on the next page". In terms of the Disney Strategy you need to separate the different perceptual positions: Dreamer, Realist and Critic. If you find that your dreaming is continually hijacked by thoughts about "hard times" and "being realistic" then set yourself an internal alarm so that you notice it happening. Then shout out loud, "STOP!"

Get all of the ideas out and enjoy the buzz that comes from that before you engage the Realist or the Critic. And remember that their job isn't to strike out ideas - but to help you make your ideas better, more workable.

When you start out by setting an "achievable" goal you're pre-selecting what can be done based on what you already know. If you insist on knowing exactly how to do something before you commit to doing it how will you ever do anything new?

If one person can do something then anyone can learn to do it. Or, putting it another way, if anyone has ever done what you want to do - or something like it - then it's not impossible. There is a way to do it - in fact many ways. Trust yourself to find one!

To follow up on this theme, in January I'll be running a workshop on "How To Keep Your New Year's Resolutions". I'll confirm the details soon.

Bring it on!

2010-10-22T01:48:00.000-07:00

It seems to be more or less accepted that "stress" at work is on the increase. It's certainly prevalent as this statistic demonstrates: "In 2008/09 an estimated 415 000 individuals in Britain, who worked in the last year, believed that they were experiencing work-related stress at a level that was making them ill" (Health & Safety Executive: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/stress/index.htm).

And I wonder how many additional people felt ill but didn't realise that it was due to stress.

But is it really something new and on the rise? If so, is it due to increasing demands or decreasing ability to cope? Or is that we now have a name for the resulting condition? Was life really easier, and less worrying during feudal times? In wartime? The Black Death?

I don't know. It's an interesting question and one I'd like to hear other views on. But it's not the question I want to discuss now. Instead I'd like to consider what stress is and what you can do about it.

First of all, I'd distinguish between "stress" and "pressure".

Pressure exists in the world outside of you. It's about the demands that others impose on you.
Stress comes from your response to pressure, in particular when the perceived demands swamp your ability to cope. (And perceived demands aren't necessarily the same as what's actually being demanded.)

The term "stress" is frequently used to characterise the situation rather than the response. But it's the response that matters.

One of the dictionary definitions of "stress" is, "a state of mental, emotional, or other strain". Leaving aside the question of what "strain" might be, what's interesting about this definition is that it categorises stress as a state. And your state at any moment is entirely internal to you. It may well be a response to the outside world - to the situation you find yourself in - but it's not a characteristic of the situation or the environment. (Physicists and engineers may be having trouble with this definition - see the footnote below*.)

And what's more, different people, at different times, experience the same events differently.

But there still survives a certain quite aggressive attitude that stress is what winners seek and, by implication, losers can't handle. So you hear, "I thrive on stress", and similar. Perhaps people who say this are lying. But if not, then I suggest that what they're experiencing isn't stress because, according to the definition above, stress is characterised by what you feel. So, if you're feeling energised, if you're "thriving", then you're not "stressed" - by definition!

If you believe that you thrive on stress then I suggest that what you probably have is a very positive response to challenge. The more you're pressed, the more motivated you become. But there must still be a limit to what any individual can deal with without experiencing stress.

So what then, for example, do we mean by "a stressful job"? You could say that it's any job you can't do! Or one that frequently overwhelms your ability to cope. And it's interesting that the factors that overwhelm you may have nothing to do with how complex or specialised the role as defined in the job description is. They are much more likely to be about the volume of work, relationships with colleagues and your manager's behaviour towards you.

What can you do to change it?

Well, there are a few approaches that may be familiar from earlier newsletters:

Manage your state: Use the anchoring technique that I've described before (http://www.changeworkcoaching.com/docs/i_don't_feel_like.pdf) to get yourself into a more resourceful state whenever you need to. Imagine using the technique in the stressful situation so that you remember to "fire" the anchor when that situation arises.
Re-frame your beliefs about the pressure situation: You need to have choice and a sense of being sufficiently in control to be able to work effectively and to maintain a balanced perspective. Contrast this with the feeling of frustration that comes when you seem to be prevented from doing what you know you need to do to meet the demand. An example of this would be your boss driving you to meet a particular objective but simultaneously undermining your efforts by giving conflicting objectives to others, removing resources, insisting it be done "his way", or throwing lots of other, less important tasks at you.
A resourceful response to this situation would be to negotiate. That is, to talk to your boss about the criteria for success and what the actual constraints are. You can challenge both of these components and seek to arrive at an agreement as to what you both commit to doing: you to meet the criteria, your manager to support you! Taking the initiative in this way replaces your old beliefs about your status in the relationship.
Share the problem: Go to someone you trust to talk about the situation - and about how you feel. If the organisation can't provide the support you need consider looking outside for professional help.
Stop doing it to others! Am I causing stress? Is my behaviour placing impossible demands on someone else? ("Impossible" as perceived by them - not according to my view of how they "should" feel!) The demands of work change all the time. It's perfectly reasonable, in fact desirable, for managers to set objectives that stretch people. But they then need to be sensitive to the reponses they get. Some people will experience motivation and excitement. Others will be crushed.

So, stress is what you experience when perceived demands exceed your ability to cope. As well as looking for ways to change the demands you can also change how you respond so that you don't feel stressed, even if the pressure persists. It's in your hands, which means that, in a sense, stress is usually self -inflicted. And Tommy Cooper had a useful comment on that, "I went to see the doctor. I said, 'Doctor! It hurts when I do that'. The doctor said, 'Don't do that!' "

I certainly couldn't put it better.

*In physics and engineering, the exact opposite definition holds: "stress" relates to the forces applied to an object whereas "strain" is a measure of how the object responds by stretching or compressing. So there's a certain irony in the dictionary definition I quoted, referring to the psychological concept of stress as, "a state of mental, emotional, or other strain". Defining "stress" as a type of "strain" makes no sense in mechanics!

Updates are available!

2010-09-22T01:37:00.000-07:00

Mark Twain said, "All generalisations are false, including this one". They are also the basis for many false, personal beliefs, where a specific experience is turned into a general principle. For example, trying something once and failing leads to the belief, "I can't do that", which you then take even further to become, "I'm not that kind of person".

I think it's a generalisation with a lot of truth in it to say that the biggest obstacle to self-development is the belief that you're a particular type of person.

But isn't it obvious? We all have a personality, which my dictionary defines as, "the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character", and if there's only a finite number of characteristics then we're bound to fall into groups of similar "type", aren't we?

This may be true and, on the face of it, fairly harmless - if it weren't for the unspoken and unrecognised presupposition that this "type" is an accident of birth and fixed for life.

I like to use the analogy of the PC on your desk (or the Mac if you're a creative "type"!) and say that if your brain is the combination of processor and hard drive, then your mind is the software. And just as the computer has software operating at different levels - applications on top that you directly manipulate, with an operating system underneath that you're not usually aware of - so the mind has a conscious part that you're in charge of and an unconscious "operating system" that runs by itself.

When you learn a new skill it's like getting a new application on your PC. Just like installing new software, new knowledge enables you to do new things. What you don't see on your PC though is how that new software fits itself into the existing operating system, linking to other applications and information and generally bedding in. Similarly, consolidating a new skill involves practice, generating the unconscious elements like "muscle memory" and gradually locking more and more of the new capability into the unconscious mind, your operating system. Eventually you develop "unconscious competence".

(Driving a car is a great example of this. Your first time behind the wheel involves so many simultaneous processes it's right on the limit of what you can actually do consciously. Very quickly though, the mechanics of driving become unconscious and your attention is freed to think about other things, such as where you're going - or what's on the radio.)

With your PC, it's generally advisable not to tinker with the operating system - just to upgrade whenever Bill Gates wants you to, completely erasing what was there and replacing it with an unfamiliar, apparently untested new version. (Not that this bothers me of course!)

Most people tend to regard their mental operating system in a similar light, i.e. you don't (actually can't) alter anything. It's about "the kind of person you are" so, unlike the PC, there's no upgrade available.

Well, in fact you can re-write the little pieces of "software" that you run unconsciously and habitually. It's just the same as learning a new skill: first you do it consciously and imperfectly and then, through repetition, you perfect it and lock it into your unconscious mind. Afterwards, it runs whenever it's triggered and you (the conscious you) forget all about it.

So let's imagine that you tend to respond angrily in certain situations where you would really like to be able to keep calm and allow yourself to think before responding. The question is, how do you "do" this anger?

If you were to think through a particular instance when you felt angry, focusing your attention on what you were thinking rather than what other people were doing, you might find something like the following sequence:

> Hear words
> Create image
> Self talk, "That means ..."
> Create image of meaning
> Feel angry
> Display anger

What if you stop at the self-talk step? Substitute, "That's not what I expected/wanted. I wonder what he/she means. I'll ask!" Then ask for clarification and elaboration.

Curiosity replaces anger. You are dissociated and so more resourceful.

Running through an imagined version of events where you follow the new sequence overwrites your old, habitual pattern. Doing this repeatedly establishes a new program that your unconscious mind runs when appropriate and, every time it does, the experience strengthens it.

And that's all there is to it! In computer-speak, you can install a "patch" that fixes a mental bug. What's more, it'll be backward compatible and exclusively licensed to you!

With added value!

2010-08-25T01:12:00.000-07:00

I intended to start this piece by quoting Monty Python's recipe for "Rat Pie", going so far as to search the attic for the book I was sure it was in. I actually found it and read again the step-by-step description of how to select a knife or cleaver, to hold it high up so that the steel glints in the last rays of the setting sun and then ... But the rest will offend some people and doesn't need to be repeated. Suffice to say that it tells, graphically and at length, how to kill the rat and ends with, "Then cook it in a pie".

The point I was thinking about when I remembered this classic, was that you tend to notice what you're interested in and often assume that everyone else is interested in the same things. Just like the school English homework I once did that asked for a brief synopsis of a film I'd seen followed by a critique. It was a very long film, and I'd seen it twice, so I wrote 10 pages recounting the whole story and about half a page on how good I thought it was. To me this was the right balance - I was considerably more interested in the characters and what happened to them than I was in how the story was constructed or how effectively it was portrayed.

Another way of expressing "what you're interested in" is "what you value". I've discussed values a few times before as one of the "4 building blocks": Values, Vision, Purpose and Goals where I presented values as the bedrock of your life - the things that are most important to you. And remember that you may not be consciously aware of some of them. So how do they influence you if don't even know they're there? Is there a common characteristic of "values" that distinguishes them from other ideas that you've stored away and that makes them appealing?

In fact the mind seems to utilise a system for coding all "internal representations" that identifies them as pleasant, unpleasant, stimulating, frightening or any other feeling that you can experience about an idea or a memory. The code is the particular set of "submodalities" that are used in the representation. The main modalities of thinking are visual, auditory and kinaesthetic, by which I mean that you think in pictures, in sounds and in touch or internal sensations. Then the submodalities are the qualities of those modalities: bright/dark, coloured/black-and-white, near/far, loud/soft, high/low-pitched, warm/cold, rough/smooth etc.

In the January 2008 article I described how the submodalities of a memory or an imagined event determine how you feel about it and that by consciously changing the submodalities you can permanently change the associated feelings. Well, the same applies to values - the things that are important to you. So, you might value "friendship", in which case that concept is always associated with an image, sounds and/or sensations that are emotionally satisfying for you. And if you take the trouble to examine the submodalities of another idea, one that you're indifferent to, and compare them with those of "friendship" (or whatever else it is you value) you'll find differences.

So how can this be put to use?

Well, just as you can make something you're apprehensive about, such as an interview, feel less threatening by changing its submodalities, so you can change the order of your values by adjusting the code. Let's say for example that, at work, you tend to focus on the details of the task in hand rather than on the feelings or the wellbeing of your co-workers. That's not to say that you are necessarily callous or in any way negative towards them, you're just not really that interested. Once you move into any kind of supervisory position then this preference will affect your leadership ability because most people are very sensitive to how others feel about them. If you would rather be talking about the problem, the project or the challenge then, even if you take the trouble to ask how they are, they will know that it's not genuine. They may not think it consciously but they'll feel it. Every gesture, facial expression and intonation of yours will tell their unconscious minds that you're thinking something that isn't congruent with your words.

Now, if this is you and you want to influence and lead more effectively, you can choose to alter your values. As described in the January 2008 article, you identify the critical submodalities, i.e. the ones that are different between your representations of "the task" and "your people" and which also make a difference to your feelings when you change them. Then deliberately change those critical elements so that thinking about "your people" feels just as interesting and stimulating as thinking about "the task".

To make this clearer, let's say that the key submodality for you is the brightness of the visual image and that you represent the important things in a very bright picture and everything else much darker. (Note that it doesn't have to be this way round. For some people "bright" can be upsetting!) Now, simply make your mental picture of "your people" brighter, and notice the change in how it feels. Hold it like that for a while and it will begin to take hold. And also, when you're planning a conversation with a team member, make sure that you imagine the scene to be nice and bright (or whatever your critical submodality is). This will engage you in the same way that "the task" usually does so that when you have the actual encounter you'll be much more focused on the other person - and they will know it.

Oh dear, I seem to have told a very long story again and now haven't enough space left to summarise and to put it into context. Anyone would think I care more about the details!

The more it stays the same

2010-08-01T13:50:00.000-07:00

There's very little in the news about things staying the same. I suppose it wouldn't be news by definition. Rather we hear policies, predictions and threats that point to massive changes on their way in most aspects of life. This kind of news generates either excited anticipation, fear or indifference depending on how you think you'll be affected.

Many people are quickly bored if they have no sense of change happening. Others seek stability and are disturbed by the idea of change - and particularly by uncertainty.

In a recent article I discussed why people resist change. Here I'll review the same issues from the perspective of the manager, or "change agent".

Reflecting on this, a new question occurred to me. Is change management really any different from project management?

Well, I suppose that we usually think of change management as being expressed within the context of a project - but one with particular goals that distinguish it.

Whereas a "real" project is aimed at producing some tangible product with a clear value, change projects impact on the organisation itself and the value they deliver is usually speculative - a matter of opinion or faith.

The other difference is that the people involved in a change project are likely to be personally affected by the outcome. And I suggest that this is the factor that makes the management of change particularly challenging.

Also, if you're involved in building a new facility or developing a new product then you might reasonably expect success to bring you some form of recognition and reward. But is this true of "change"?

So, there are two questions an individual is likely to ask themselves in relation to a change project that wouldn't arise in other cases:

is the change inherently good or bad for me, and
do I expect my efforts in implementing the change to be rewarded?

In planning to lead a change project it's wise to put significant effort into providing positive answers to these questions. Perhaps different answers for each individual involved.

This will tend to revolve around fairly clear issues of self-interest: more work or less, money, perks or recognition. But remember the emotional factors, usually unstated, that stem from people's beliefs about what they can and cannot do. These can be absolute blockers for the individual concerned and may force them to resist the change in seemingly unreasonable ways - probably quite out of character.

So look out for these clues that there's a hidden problem and be prepared to coach some people through the project. (Are you able to have a conversation about something personal? Do you need to bring in someone independent to act as counsellor?)

In preparing your approach to leading change, remember the two different motivation types: towards and away.

It isn't going to get you far to enthuse about the future benefits that will flow from the change if you're dealing with someone who's away-motivated. They may well accept that the benefits could come, but they won't be excited by the prospect. They are much more concerned about the multitude of problems that they foresee and might feel that the task is impossible.

You'd be well advised to respect and accommodate this point of view. These are the practical, problem-solving people who can actually make it work - once you've persuaded them to attempt it.

What's in it for them? The satisfaction of winning the game and restoring order and comfort.

Towards-motivated people are likely to be interested in the value of the outcome and tend to overlook difficulties. For them it's good to be aware of what they value and to emphasise the corresponding benefits in the change.

What's in it for them? The excitement of making things different - of reaching a new place.

So what else is important to an effective agent of change? What are the underlying values that motivate and guide them?

I've explored this with a range of managers, all very experienced in leading and facilitating change. Some common themes emerged.

The things they most value in the context of a change project are:

Making the organisation better
The feeling of making a difference, of being useful
Gaining recognition and respect
Developing other people and seeing them grow
Building relationships (for pleasure and for future use)

Their beliefs about themselves, about the others involved and about their organisations are:

I can make a difference
I can get the best out of others
If you're open and honest, they'll treat you the same way
Everyone has a responsibility to participate - to meet me halfway
They're not as motivated as me
They are more talented than they think they are
It's our job to give them confidence
There are things that people can't do (without some help)
Change is good for the organisation
The future will be better

Values and beliefs together comprise "attitude". So if you want to adopt the attitude of an effective agent of change then you need to become the person who shares the above values and beliefs.

And that just takes practice. Believe it!

When you wish upon a star ...

2010-07-21T07:12:00.000-07:00

The root of "behaviour" is, of course, the sequence of thoughts that underlie it. And so to extend your range of behaviours you need to modify your thinking habits. For example, perhaps you are prevented from taking risks because, faced with a choice, you habitually create a mental list of everything that could go wrong and then imagine what it would feel like if they all did go wrong. This installs a belief that the risky action will definitely fail: your unconscious mind knows it because it has experienced it already!

You probably know someone who doesn't appear to follow this process. They can evaluate risk, decide whether the reward is worth it and then take action. You can do that too by thinking like they do. When your internal voice says, "But I'm not like that person", you reply, "What would I do if I were like them?" Thinking (and acting) as if something were true, even when you "know" it isn't, is the key to breaking out of your mental habits. The questions, "What would I do if .. What would it be like if ..?" give you permission to imagine a world without the constraints of "reality". And, as I've discussed before, imagining something leaves memories and perceptions that are just as powerful and persistent as "real" experiences.

To save you the trouble of finding a model for this type of thinking, I'll describe an exercise that allows you to think "as if" you were Walt Disney! The great film maker was known to deliberately adopt different processes, or perceptual positions, at different times in the creation and development of a concept. These are the Dreamer, the Realist and the Critic.

The rest of us adopt these positions as well but usually in an unhelpful way. So, the Dreamer in you comes up with an idea that the Realist immediately says is impossible and the Critic says isn't worth bothering with anyway! Perhaps with some work it could have been a very practical and worthwhile idea but you'll never know because you've already killed it.

In the Disney Strategy, you reinforce the different perspectives by associating each of them with a different place in the room - or even different rooms. So, when you've got a problem that requires a creative solution:

Stand in a place that will be your "neutral" position.
Choose three other places, at least a couple of steps apart, for your Dreamer, Realist and Critic. In a moment you'll be able to step into each of these places and so into the corresponding perceptual position.
Remember a time when you were particularly creative, when you had a great idea or maybe a string of ideas. Step into the Dreamer position and fully immerse yourself in that creative time. Just experience feeling creative without evaluation or direction. When you've dreamed your fill step back to the neutral place.
Now recall a time when you were careful and prudent in planning and re-planning something. Perhaps you were taking some big financial step or planning a journey. You were very aware of the practical issues and the actions required to carry your plan through. Now step into the Realist position and re-live that time as vividly as you can. When you've finished that return to the neutral position.
Finally, think of a time when you were able to criticise a plan constructively. That is, you could point out the strengths and weaknesses in someone's idea and ask the key questions that related to the value of the outcome. Then return to the neutral place.
Take your time over these preparatory stages. It's important to build up the experience in each case, remembering the details, even using your imagination to add to them. Actually being in the corresponding state as you stand in each place creates a link between the state and the place. Now, when you step into one of the positions you will resume the state, able to access the resources that you need to carry out that type of thinking. When you've created your anchors in this way you can return to the same room whenever you need to and use them again.
Now you can tackle the actual problem, using the three perceptual positions separately:
Thinking of the outcome you want, step into the Dreamer position and allow yourself to ... dream! Remember, while you're in this place you don't need to concern yourself with what's realistic or what's important. You'll mostly be using visual representations for dreaming and you're completely free to visualise any number of thrilling futures, safe in the belief that you can't fail. This is where you allow yourself access to everything your mind is capable of creating or recalling without any censorship. When you've finished daydreaming return to the neutral position.
Stepping into the Realist place, think about the practicalities of carrying out your plan. What needs to change to make it real? Put things in the right order and imagine doing them. In this position you feel what it will be like to put your ideas into practice. Then step back into the neutral place.
Next, step into the Critic position and look for the flaws in the plan. What's in it for you? Will you be able to get co-operation from other people? What will it cost in time, effort, cash and emotion? Will you carry it through? This is essentially an internal dialogue. You allow your inner critic full rein. Finally, return to neutral position.
Now, having pulled the plan to pieces you can return to the Dreamer position and use your creative imagination to make it again, better than before. You can continue to move around the three positions, utilising the different resources in each one, until you have arrived at a plan that passes the Realist's test of practicality and the Critic's test of value.

So that's the Disney Strategy. It helps you to utilise your creative abilities by putting them in partenership with the Realist and the Critic rather than allowing them to conflict. For most of us, the Dreamer hasn't usually won that contest.