Earlier this week I was sitting in a town hall meeting held by the head of human resources for an organization going through a major overhaul of its HR function.  The audience was a collection of HR professionals from throughout the world gathered in person and via the web to hear about state of affairs with the massive change that had begun a few months earlier.

The audience waited anxiously expecting an announcement of inevitable job loss, but also hoping their leader would share a vision of a modern, effective department whose contributions were prized by the organization. 

Instead, the SVP droned for thirty unfulfilling minutes spouting meaningless clichés about tackling the “low hanging fruit” (eight times) on their way to having a “seat at the table” (five times) where they could be a “strategic partner with the business” (six times).  He stumbled through his too-detailed slides in a lifeless monotone with a stiff back and an empty facial expression.  Detached.  Distant.  Not revealing anything of substance.

The feedback from the audience after the meeting suggested he failed not only to provide any meaningful information, but more importantly to make the connection required to get anything more than dutiful compliance to the task ahead.  The comments after the presentation ranged from the politically correct (“I think his plan is still developing”) to the skeptical (“I’m not sure he fully understands what’s required”) to the confused (“I’m not really sure what the heck he said”) to the hostile (“He doesn’t have a clue”).

He will need much more than that to get the focus, energy and commitment required to complete the effort.

Now, imagine the difference if he stood at the front of the room, took off his jacket, sat on the edge of a table and said:

“Our business has changed a great deal over the past decade, and it’s clear that the HR function that brought us to this point needs to change to support our company in the coming years.  To help us identify the right steps to take, we hired some experienced advisors to share their insights and present us with recommendations.  I would like to say that I understand all that we need to do, but I’m still learning about these new tools, processes and structural changes and what they will mean for us.  What I do know is that with your help, we will be able to make the right decisions—even the tough decisions—that will take us in the best direction.  Now, let me share with you some of what I understand and where I am still learning.”

Our instinct during times of uncertainty is to domesticate reality.  We try to put life in a box where we can control it and we hide behind platitudes hoping that the appearance of certainty will bring comfort to those around us.  The result?  We appear inauthentic and we put distance between ourselves and those we are trying to lead.

Instead, we must learn to live with a robust and confident uncertainty.  Only by allowing ourselves to be seen, showing our own vulnerability, will we draw others close enough to engage in the creative, collaborative process of facing the unknown.

My view of organization effectiveness starts with two important assumptions:

1. We are interdependent, and as a result
2. We need to collaborate.

Interdependence implies that people need to cooperate in order to accomplish what they want.  In the workplace, managers need employees to accomplish results that lead to department or organization success.  Likewise, employees need managers to help clarify goals and objectives, give feedback about performance, and provide fair compensation for the work performed.  During change initiatives, technical resources, subject matter experts and stakeholders need each other to shape workable solutions.  In families and personal relationships, people rely on each other to enhance emotional satisfaction through mutual acceptance, support, encouragement, or love.

One of the most troubling and frustrating aspects of human existence, however, is this notion of interdependence.  We realize that our needs, wants, desires, goals and objectives involve the participation of others and getting their participation sometimes can be confounding.  We feel dependent upon them to satisfy our need, resolve the difference, or provide needed support.  On the other hand, we also feel the need to eliminate the obstacle—or the person—which stands in our way.  We want to get the desired results independent of them.  We wish we could get what we want through our own effort, or at least exist without this “problem” in our life.

So, we are faced with a dilemma.  Our desired outcomes require a degree of dependence on them. It requires their contribution, their input, and their feedback.  Our preferred way of obtaining the outcome requires independence of us.  It requires that I do it, I take responsibility, I become self-reliant, and I achieve the result.  We resent dependence because we are not in control and can be blocked from our goal or manipulated to a different outcome, yet we recognize that independence is unrealistic because others often have something we need.

The trouble with this binary thinking is that it leads to destructive conflict.  When getting what we want becomes challenging it triggers our fight or flight instincts, and as a result, we are tempted to either to try to dominate and control or to run away.  That’s why bosses become “bossy,” employees quit, business partners become litigious, and personal relationships crumble.

And that is our big clue:  Conflict occurs only between interdependent parties.  We would not be in conflict with someone unless we needed something from them.  But interdependence does not mean we must lose ourselves in order to get what we want.  Interdependence requires drawing out the value of we.  If I am independent, I can achieve a great deal because I am self-reliant and capable.  But when we work together, we can achieve much more than I could produce alone, especially if you have something that would enhance my success.  Interdependence requires that we create a better outcome by exchanging or creating something of value to each of us.

The first step is realizing the fact that we are interdependent.  That is Assumption #1.  Then, it is about embracing Assumption #2 by recognizing that interdependence requires collaboration.  And collaboration begins with understanding the needs, desires and goals of each party required to create mutually beneficial solutions.

The amazing result is that when we choose to work together to achieve our desired outcomes, we are more inclined to coordinate our efforts, attend to one another, and have increased levels of productivity.  We also tend to like one another more and participate in more constructive communication and exchange.

So, the key to hacking the buggy code of intolerance, and minimizing the The Dangers of Corporate Fundamentalism, is to make the shortcomings of independence more painful than the patience and discipline required of collaboration.  Only then will others come to the table ready to listen, learn and create.

Intolerance.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines intolerance as the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs or behaviors that differ from one’s own.

In American politics, we have seen a level of bipartisanship that has Washington divided into Red and Blue extremes, and as Todd Purdum, National Editor of Vanity Fair, described in his September 2010 article, “Washington , We Have a Problem,” “the partisan calumny and contempt in Washington are today all-consuming.” Around the world, we are seeing intolerance take many forms from the rise of religious fundamentalism in both the Christian and Muslim worlds to “the blatant bigotry of many mainstream political leaders, journalists and other elites” in Europe (Washington Post).

In the workplace, intolerance reveals itself in a variety of ways.  It may be as blatant as a racial slur or ridicule of sexual orientation.  More often, it is as seemingly innocuous as a manager silencing a naysayer, discouraging the introduction of a new idea or calling a person “a negative thinker.”  It might also be demonstrated in customer-vendor relationships when battle lines are drawn, demands are made and both sides compete to determine how many pounds of flesh can be extracted before an mutually unsatisfying agreement is reached.

As stated by a VP of client management for a well-known enterprise technology vendor, “I went into the meeting thinking this client was one of our best relationships.  They rated our work highly, appeared arm-in-arm with us at conferences, and were one of our frequent testimonials.  I knew we were in trouble, though, when I walked into the conference room and saw their purchasing director and two attorneys.  It was as if today was the day they decided to beat the crap out of someone and it was our turn.  There was no give and take discussion.  It was all about how they were right and we were wrong.”

Intolerance of any kind in organizations is a form of workplace violence.  Plain and simple.  It may not lead to physical violence per se, but it is not about connecting, partnering or collaborating.  It is about dominating and eliminating that which is different.

Intolerance is an ideological fundamentalism that insists there is only one right way and that all other ways are wrong.  A fundamentalist is one who says, “If you don’t think the way I think, then you are unworthy.  And if you say that my way is the wrong way, then you are against me.”

This is a form of violence because ideological fundamentalism is closely followed by rhetorical fundamentalism which becomes a gateway to physical fundamentalism.  The initial thought of “you don’t think like me” often is carried further in the minds of intolerants when they say, “People who don’t think like me (or us) should get in line or leave.  My, gosh, they are anti-company.  They don’t buy into our values or our culture.”

Then rhetorically the intolerant might start asking questions such as “What should we do with people that are anti-company?”  Pretty soon we are ready for the final stage that says, “Anyone who is against the company should be fired” or “any vendor who is unwilling to see things our way should be sued.”

There is a temptation within intolerant thinking to escalate any variation from a “difference” to a “danger.”  And by talking about anyone who thinks differently as wrong, inappropriate, unsuitable or anti-company, you are laying the foundation for somebody in power to do something about it.

Listen, I’ve been around technology for most of my career, so I understand the idea of binary constructs. One/Zero.  Right/wrong.  Black/white.  Us/Them.  In/Out. Red/Blue.  Conservative/Liberal.  Capitalist/Socialist.  Yin/Yang.

It is human nature to try to make sense of an uncertain world with the certainty of binary thinking.  We seek to find an answer, the one answer, to every question.  And if we don’t know it, we search the web or hire a consultant and expect a presentation of THE answer.  We want to skip the organization assessment, skip the contextual analysis, skip the frameworks and methodologies and go right to the answer.  And we want the answer to be clear, concise and presented quickly.

Leaders often make the mistake of thinking they must be prepared to give one answer, the only answer, to every challenge that comes their way.  This faulty thinking creates a problem.  It makes leaders think that their answer must not only be right, it must be followed or else it is a challenge to their authority.  It presents another problem because when a leader finds the “right way” it means all dissention must be shut out.  Now, they might manage to have genuine sympathy for others in their wrongness, but make no mistake about it, they are wrong.

Leadership based upon this thinking means the right way is about my thinking, my approach, my team, my function, my division, my region, my company, my culture, my tribe, my dogma.  Any deviation from that is substandard.

But here’s the rub.  Organization effectiveness and intolerance cannot coexist.

We live in a business world that is increasingly partnered, contracted, outsourced, off-shored, virtual, international and matrixed.  Our organizations and project teams are flat, without any real hierarchy and without direct reporting lines.  There are multiple business models that work in a variety of contexts.

Dare I say it?  There is no One Right Way.  In fact, teaming, collaboration, invention, innovation and creativity require the expansiveness of multiple right ways.  They also demand a new way of thinking and a new way of approaching our interactions with the differences we encounter along the way.

Over the next few posts, I will begin to share (in fewer words) what I have learned about how we hack the code of collaboration in these evolving organization forms.

I’m sentimental

So I walk in the rain

I’ve got some habits

Even I can’t explain

I go to the corner

I end up in Spain

Why try to change me now

Whether voiced with the fragile anguish of Fiona Apple or the charming cockiness of Frank Sinatra, these Cy Coleman lyrics express the unapologetic resistance we often face when managing change.  Overcoming resistance is an essential capability required of change leaders. Here are a few techniques for gaining support as well as the pros and cons of using them.  An adaptive change leader may deploy multiple strategies throughout a project:

1. Education and communication are used when there is a lack of information or inaccurate information and analysis.  Advantage:  Once persuaded, people will help with the implementation of the change.  Disadvantage:  Education and communication can be very time-consuming if lots of people are involved.
2. Participation and involvement are used when the change leaders do not have all the information they need to design the change and when others have considerable power to resist.  Advantage:  People who participate will be committed to implementing change, and any relevant information they have will be integrated into the plan.  Disadvantage:  Involving others in the change process can be very time-consuming, especially if participants design an inappropriate approach to change.
3. Facilitation and support are best when people are resisting because of adjustment problems.  Advantage:  No other approach works as well with adjustment problems.  Disadvantage:  Facilitation and support can be time-consuming, expensive and still fail.
4. Negotiation and agreement are used when someone or some group will clearly lose out in a change, and when that group has considerable power to resist.  Advantage:  Negotiation has proven to be a relatively easy way to avoid major resistance.  Disadvantage:  It can be too expensive in many cases if it alerts others to negotiate.
5. Manipulation and co-optation are used when other tactics will not work or are too expensive.  Advantage:  It can be a quick and inexpensive solution to resistance problems.  Disadvantage:  It can lead to future problems if people feel manipulated.
6. Explicit and implicit coercion are best when speed is essential, and the change initiators possess considerable power.  Advantage:  Coercion is speedy and can overcome any kind of resistance.  Disadvantage:  It can be risky if it leaves people angry with those who initiate the change.

A few weeks ago I was talking with a project manager who wanted an assessment of his team’s capability.  The project had been moving along without significant problems, but was approaching an intense period with several critical milestones.  The project manager felt unsettled because his team was not providing the analysis and insight he expected.

“I don’t think I have a team that has the right skill set,” the project manager confessed.  “We’re coming up on some very important milestones and they’re not sharing the usual level of detail.  I’m concerned they don’t know what they are doing and that I’ll have to make some decisions without their input.”

When I spoke with the project team, they expressed a similar frustration.  “I don’t feel like he trusts us,” the validation lead shared.  “Meetings feel more like an inquisition.  We’ve all worked on similar projects before, but he hasn’t recognized any of our experience.  We know he’s a good project manager, but he doesn’t seem to know we’re good, too.”

There have been a number of studies that examined the relationship between trust in management and the actual performance at the group or organizational level.  One study, for example, found that when basketball team members trust their coach, their performance is better.  Another study found that when restaurant employees trust their manager the restaurant’s sales and net profits increase.  The results of these studies demonstrate that when employees trust management, organizations have greater success.

More importantly, a study by Sabrina Deutsch Salamon (York University) and Sandra Robinson (University of British Columbia) found that when employees feel that they are trusted by management, organizational performance is improved.  This is significant because it shows that a sense of “felt trust” affects performance beyond the effect of employee trust in management.  It shows that when employees feel trusted by management it can have a direct impact on the top and bottom lines.

This is a very different picture than the leader standing on a pedestal waiting for employees to prove themselves and earn his or her trust.  These results suggest that successful leaders start the relationship by actively showing employees they trust them through words and deeds.

For many organizational leaders and human resources professionals, this study validates what they have known intuitively for years: the more you engage and involve your employees, the more you give them autonomy to perform their jobs, the better you tap their intrinsic motivation and drive employee performance skyward.

Unfortunately, many of the well-developed techniques of organizational management and control work directly against these findings.  This is especially true of rigorous project management methodologies.  They enable companies to organize people in different places with different skills to perform tasks with structure consistency, but at the risk of marginalizing the relationship building skills that build trust.

It’s a delicate, but important, balance.  To be a successful leader, especially under the demands of time-intensive projects, requires that you apply the formal structures and process needed for systematic execution AND that you show a willingness to be “emotionally vulnerable and human with one another.” (Patrick Lencioni)

It turns out that Douglas McGregor was on the right track about how to manage in the future with his concept of Theory Y managers:  People are more self-directed, committed and creative when managers develop a climate of trust by communicating openly, minimizing the relationship distance between themselves and their subordinates, and creating a comfortable environment where employees can develop and use their abilities.

Every time I hear Tom Chaplin’s delicate and vulnerable delivery of Tim Rice-Oxley’s lyrics, I imagine an executive choosing this song as the script for their change announcement.   The balance between an urgent necessity and a confusing transition strikes a note of truth that if only spoken more frequently would show an incredible regard for the feelings of employees.  An understanding of that depth creates the trust and emotional connection needed to get others engaged, collaboratively, in building the future.

So little time
Try to understand that I’m
Trying to make a move just to stay in the game
I try to stay awake and remember my name
But everybody’s changing
And I don’t feel the same.

Ethan Zuckerman is the senior researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and he studies how the world uses new media to share information and moods across cultures, languages and platforms.  In this talk he identifies a troubling challenge:  While the internet connects the globe, most of us only listen to people just like ourselves.

“The world is, in fact, getting more global.  It’s getting more connected.  More of our problems are global in scale.  More of our economics is global in scale.  And our media is less global by the day.”

Our technological connectivity isn’t helping us understand the world.  It’s helping us become more myopic.  And at a time when the real problems of the world are global in scale and scope, we need to broaden our perspective and our sources of information.

That’s an effective practice even if our “world” is our own smaller workplace and community.  Our ability to solve problems, to innovate and to build sustainable businesses, ecosystems and societies, is entirely dependent upon recognizing our interconnectedness.

Just as there are parts of the world are dark spots in terms of attention, there are parts of our smaller world that are blind spots for us. Our ability to learn and understand these dark spots and to discover how they are vital to us, depends not only on the recommendations of guides, but on our desire to seek to understand the full “width and wonder of the world.”

Listening to global voices requires rewiring our own data gathering systems and taking the time to translate, understand and embrace the richness outside our perspective.

The fastest way to learn is to discover a person or group which reaches totally different conclusions to your own when looking at the same reality. Robert Theobald

All too often, we suffer from an acceptance of ignorance.  Whether we are talking about organizations, nations, political parties, religions, communities or individuals, the tension and conflict present in so many of our interactions does not represent differences between values and beliefs, cultures and civilizations.  Instead, it is the result of the acceptance of ignorance and the unwillingness to learn and understand.

When understanding is not present, the ability to predict, anticipate, comprehend, empathize, and ultimately, connect becomes much more difficult.  But then again, connection is a dirty word.

• “I don’t want to waste time talking with end-users about this technology.  We understand what they need better than they do.”
• “I’m tired of listening to these damn employee complaints.  We’ve given them too much already.  What more do they want?”
• “If we include ‘them’ in our decision-making process, they will want something we might not be able to deliver.”
• “I know it’s better to include your employees to help them develop, but it just takes too much time.  It’s more expedient to just tell them what to do.”

Companies treat suppliers like criminals who are determined to find holes in their contracts that help them steal us blind.  Managers distance themselves from employees, so it is easier to fire them should there be a RIF.  The company president lives in a town far removed from the community of his or her executive assistant . . . intentionally.  Their kids don’t go to the same school, nor play on the same ball team.

Politicians refuse to walk across the party isle to create compromise, let alone improve a bill through dialog.  Countries refuse to engage in talks.  Diplomacy, and the ability to reach across ideological divides to solve pressing problems, has been replaced with a celebration of intractable ideology.

All this posturing.  All this noise.  All these opinions.  All this desire to stand apart.

And nobody listens.

As John Mayer sings in his hit song, sometimes we have let people say what they need to say.  We have to make sure they know that they can take out their wasted honor, their past frustrations, their so called problems and put them in quotations.  Even if their hands are shakin’ and their faith is broken, we’ll let them say what they need to say.

As much as this song is about the power of sharing your true feelings, it’s also about giving the gift of listening as someone unloads.  When we listen, we help others feel understood.  We show them our heart’s wide open and give them space to communicate their needs, interests, and ideas – both what they know and what they may not yet understand.

The real gift, however, isn’t to them.  It’s to us.  We learn.  We understand.  Our own ignorance is replaced with the ability to connect.

Sometimes the best solutions are the most obvious, and unfortunately, the ones least considered.

Organization change is hard because leaders and project teams forget to do the simple, but important things, while spending extraordinary amounts of effort in the glitzy and complex.  Technology projects focus on the technology.  Outsourcing focuses on cost analysis.  Mergers focus on the synergies or the marketing, sales and finance strategy.  Process reengineering projects focus on, well, the process models.

Yet, somehow, amidst all this great thinking, projects struggle . . . because we don’t do the obvious things that would help us be more successful.

In a recent workshop, a technology project team was discussing how they could test the technical design specifications for their tool.  Should they survey what other companies have done?  Should they complete a study of best practices (which they hoped the vendor would provide)?  Should they build an online survey that contained screen shots and multiple choice questions?

After almost 30 minutes of this discussion, one of the less experienced members of the team finally asked, “Why don’t we just show the tool to some end-users and ask their opinions?” (Out of the mouths of babes!)

“That’s great,” said an experienced participant.  “We could organize focus groups and build a questionnaire . . .”

“Does it have to be that formal?” asked the newbie.  “Couldn’t we learn a lot just by talking with some people and listening to what they say?”

Simple, straightforward, and effective.

The best techniques to ensure project success are not fancy, but they are amazingly effective.  Here are five that should be part of every project:

1. Involve stakeholders.  Successful projects involve stakeholders—end-users/customers, executives/steering committee members, functional experts and others—from the outset and throughout the initiative.  Whether involved formally or informally, stakeholders shape the criteria for solutions, evaluate decisions along the way and help communicate to the organization.  They will help create success and be champions for the project . . . if we let them.
2. Listen to stakeholders.  Listen to what they say and what they don’t say.  Listen to their ideas and their emotions.  See the world through their eyes and learn how your project impacts them.  Understand their fears, concerns, needs, and desires, and let that understanding be part of the criteria for the decisions you make during your project.
3. Include your vendors.  Make vendors a part of your project team.  Leverage their experience.  Show them the real organization, warts and all, and so they will understand how to adapt their solutions and offer suggestions for navigating the challenges.
4. Learn from past projects.  Gather the project managers from the last few organization change efforts in a room and have them compare notes.  Or spend time with them one-on-one and have them share their “inside secrets.”  Learn what went wrong and make sure not to do it.  Learn what went right and make sure to put that in your plan.
5. Be transparent.  Transparency helps get all the information out on the table for consideration.  It makes the challenges, and our decisions about how to manage challenges, easier for others to understand and accept.  All projects have trade-offs.  When we increase our openness, it engages others, compels them to become our collaborators and enables us to create greater buy-in along the way.

In my personal life, I am an optimist.  I believe fully in the power of positive thinking and the value of spreading good cheer wherever I go, if only because it makes life more fun and enjoyable.

But when it comes to managing change, I believe in realism.  A key component of the Architecture of Change is being brutally honest about the challenges that may impact the success of the project.  If you are going to prepare to manage change effectively, you have to understand the organization’s underbelly.  You have to understand the 3F’s–the fears, frustrations and failures–of the organization and its people.  Only then will you understand how to navigate resistance.  Only then will you understand how to leverage the initiative to turn dissatisfaction into satisfaction and apathy into enthusiasm.  It provides the depth of understanding required to make the emotional connections that accelerate acceptance.

Do you have to go that deep to drive change?  No, but then your project—whether a technology or outsourcing implementation, merger, divestiture, restructuring or any other kind of change—is nothing more than a technical implementation.  You may get the benefits of the new technology or process, but you miss the larger opportunity for achieving the benefits of broader behavioral or cultural change:  better utilization of process or technology; increased cost savings; or improved organizational effectiveness.  It’s the difference between “completing the project” or “achieving the real results.”

The challenge with understanding the requirements for change at this deeper level is that it demands a high degree of discipline, desire and patience.  It requires that you listen without trying to solve or fix or judge or react to the “negativity” that you hear.  Only then can you take it all in, go beyond the superficial symptoms and solutions, and identify broader strategies for achieving more sustainable results.

This can be especially challenging for those executives who don’t like “whiners,” who want “solutions, not problems,” or who want their people to have “positive attitudes.”

Just the other day I reported the results of a readiness assessment to a twitchy exec who anxiously awaited the report of weeks of interviews and focus groups designed to give feedback about the technology and process change he was implementing.  I had the fun job of telling him what, deep down, he already knew:  the customers were at best apathetic, and at worst, hostile toward the change.  In addition, his direct reports were concerned that the change was “doomed for mediocrity.”

I didn’t make it beyond the first couple of PowerPoint bullets before he slammed his fist on the conference table and said, “I highly disagree with these results!  You don’t know what you are talking about.  I don’t like the language you’ve used to provide this feedback.  All this negativity!  If you want to advise this organization you are going to have to focus on more of the positives.  We have to tell this organization the change will be good for them and I’ve hired you to help put an end to this complaining.”

He eventually calmed down and admitted that he had heard all of this before.  And he also realized the words he didn’t like were direct quotes from his organization (and I edited out the most hostile comments!).  But he continued to struggle with what to do with the information.  His urge was to gather everyone in a room, give them a tongue lashing and to tell them if they just changed their attitude . . .

I love the above video.  The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) produces fantastic content with genius graphics, and in this video, shares the enlightening commentary of Barbara Ehrenreich.  From 1991 to 1997, Ehrenreich was a regular columnist for Time magazine. Currently, she contributes regularly to The Progressive and has also written for the New York Times, Mother Jones, The Atlantic Monthly, Ms, The New Republic, Z Magazine, In These Times, Salon.com, and other publications.

Whether or not you agree with her politics (which for some may immediately disqualify her as an “approved” voice for business), the lessons in this video are important for understanding how to manage change well.

It’s actually a different variation of the Boy Scout motto:  Be Prepared.

Be prepared to manage the worst case resistance.  Be prepared to handle strong emotions.  Be prepared to find multiple ways of getting through to stakeholders.  Be prepared by understanding the influence networks, the politics, the cultural norms, and the variety of stakeholder perceptions, interests and desires.

Be prepared to accept the good, bad and ugly that exists within our organizations and to realize it represents a rich diversity of brain power that, when tapped, will help us adapt, create, invent and collaborate on the way to great results.