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.

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.

Nicholas Kristof’s column in yesterday’s New York Times shared that the origins of political judgments may in part be the result of our fundamental personality type and even in the hard-wiring in our brains.  While even the researchers agree there is more work to do to validate these findings, it is consistent with the growing body of research suggesting that our brains may control us more than we control our brains.

The way we think and learn, the way we process information, the way we experience the world and the way we express ourselves are deeply encoded in our DNA.  It’s unique, personal and very “customized.”

Yet all too often we approach change in mechanistic and standardized ways.  It doesn’t matter whether we are changing a political point of view, changing a technology or asking an individual to change their job performance.

The point of this isn’t to say that creating change is impossible.  Instead, it suggests that creating change starts with understanding those who we are trying to influence.  Especially since their ability to change is all in their head.

“The single most significant strategic strength an organization can have is a commitment to strategic listening on the part of every member of the organization.”  These are strong words from Tom Peters, and they are right on target.

Listening is an organization’s most critical capability whether we are trying to deepen customer relationships, engage employees, improve team performance, resolve conflict or lead organization change.

But it’s more than just listening to the words people say.  That’s easy.

To become an effective listener we must go beyond literal content and learn to hear the intent, the emotions and the deeper meaning others are trying to communicate.

Strategic listening is about empathy.

Empathy is the ability to know how another person feels, or the ability to “walk in someone else’s shoes.” It goes beyond an ability to understand the situation of another.  Empathy is the ability to “feel” the situation of others.  That’s when real understanding occurs.

Empathic understanding, however, carries with it a risk.  When we open ourselves up to deeply understanding others, we risk being influenced by them.  Our opinions may change and our agendas may evolve.

Good heavens!  That’s a problem when we are trying to drive hard to meet deadlines and budgets.

But here’s the risk of not listening.  If we enter a situation with only the desire to make our point, then we will never have a the buy in required to accomplish our objectives.  We may get our way in the short term, but over long term achieving our goals will prove difficult.

When we push our product, customers don’t buy.  When we stop engaging our employees, they have lower productivity or they change jobs.  When we rush through the implementation of a new technology, our organizations don’t use it.

We have to be influenced in order to influence. We have to broaden our perceptions if we want to broaden the perceptions of others.

Listening with empathy not only helps our understanding of others, it creates the relationship magic that will open them up to understanding us.

When leading change, these are the two critical pieces.   We listen to learn how change will impact others and how to connect change to what’s most important to them.  And we listen to create an environment where others feel understood, accepted and emotionally at ease.  That’s when they become open to listening to us.

Abundance

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday.  I enjoy the gathering of family and friends and look forward to the feast, especially the leftovers.  More importantly, I love the reason for the day itself.  It is a time to express gratitude for the abundance we have in our lives.

Thanksgiving also is a change manager’s holiday because in my experience, I have found that leaders who maintain feelings of gratitude and abundance are significantly better equipped to manage the challenges of change.

There is a large body of research that has demonstrated that grateful people have higher levels of control of their environment, are better able to cope with difficulties, and more likely to engage others in solving problems.  They also are less likely to try to avoid or deny there is a problem, blame themselves or use other negative coping strategies.  In addition, grateful people are happier, less depressed, less stressed and more satisfied with their lives and social relationships.

An attitude of abundance has a similar impact.  Those who think abundantly understand that there are plenty of resources for everybody.  They have a strong sense of self that is not challenged by the needs, desires, success or acquired resources of others.  They also understand that resistance to change comes from a fear of loss or of a decreased ability to get personal needs met.  They are patient and know if they stay focused on collaborative problem solving, all challenges can be resolved and the needs of all parties can be satisfied.

Gratitude helps leaders adapt to the challenges of change because they see obstacles as opportunities for learning, growth and improved results.  An attitude of abundance helps leaders stay open to the world of possibilities for satisfying the needs of all.  Both take leaders beyond simple respect and courtesy in their interactions and toward the mutual acceptance, appreciation, and understanding required for to engage others in the process of change.

Happy Thanksgiving!

But the very fuel that feeds these familiar mandates, however, inevitably produces conflict.  Individuals develop new ideas that clash with the tried and true.  Department innovators step on toes outside their functional domain.  Project teams bicker as they identify requirements and solutions.  And employees compete for control in the leadership vacuum left by right-sized organizations.

At best, theses conflicts provide improved results and opportunities to learn.  At worst, when conflicts are too high or become personalized, they destroy individual self-esteem, increase tension within work teams, and decrease participation and productivity.  Whether conflict affects everyone in the organization, or just one employee, how we manage its resolution is critical to maintaining a creative, collaborative culture.  Especially during change initiatives,  sustaining a atmosphere of constructive conflict is essential to moving beyond resistance to true problem-solving.

Psychologists long have known that the absence or removal of conflict creates conditions where there is much less urgency, complete indifference to find and consider alternative ways of doing things, and no real inclination for different groups or departments to pull together toward a common goal.  In contrast, researchers also have found that stimulating conflict when it is absent may increase cognitive flexibility as well as the ability to deal with complex and contradictory information.

This poses a difficult challenge for change leaders as they try to maintain the right balance and intensity of conflict.  Too often, project managers avoid or suppress conflict in the effort to drive toward results.  This arises from the mistaken belief that results are more likely if conflict and dissention are overlooked in favor the “more important,” team objectives. On the other hand, provoking conflict only for the sake of resolving it may backfire and cause employees to retreat further into rigid, positional behavior.

In order to increase creative thinking, however, resolving conflict may be potentially premature and counterproductive.  When project managers try to resolve conflict too fast, it may decrease the enthusiasm and energy needed for innovation as well as breed disaffection or even withdrawal among many project team members.  Often, quick resolution constrains decision quality, deepens personalized conflict, and even suppresses information that might significantly impact business results.

When conflict is allowed to escalate to ideal intensity, however, it produces many benefits.  Conflict makes underlying issues explicit and can provide the motivation and strength to deal with tough problems.  It enhances people’s understanding of real interests, goals, and needs and stimulates continued communication around those issues.  Most importantly, it prevents premature, and misdiagnosed resolution of problems.

Before learning how to resolve conflict, however, project managers must learn how to think about it.  Conflict is not bad or good, conflict simply is.  If forced to choose, however, all conflict is good.  Even the most destructive, personal, hair-raising conflict provides valuable information that can enhance decisions and build stronger consensus.  The complaints, whining, negativity, nitpicking, and bullying provide important data that will eventually increase flexibility, innovation, and improvement.

In order to achieve higher levels of performance, project leaders must create opportunities for conflict to occur.  A conflict culture must be anchored by managers who learn how to see through the haze of disaffected behavior, listen, and accept different points of view.  Creativity, innovation, and flexibility will thrive when managers model collaborative behavior and guide employee development through effective mediation.

Opening Channels of Communication

The first step to maintaining the right level of organization conflict is to model the behaviors that encourage constructive disagreement and collaborative solutions.  To establish this environment, managers must demonstrate the ability to listen, confront, and collaborate.

Whether in conflict with another party or mediating a dispute between two parties, the first step we often take toward resolution is to offer additional information intended to demonstrate the logic and reasoning that supports our view of a fair solution.  When the parties remain unconvinced, we typically try harder to convince them by persuading, arguing, manipulating, sulking, or withdrawing from the interaction.  Very often, this process proves time-consuming and frustrating, and the conflict ends without a satisfactory resolution.  Or the conflict ends when we use our managerial authority to arbitrate a decision.  In either case, all parties walk away from the interaction thinking, “Why don’t they listen to me?”

Exactly.  Listening is the key to maintaining a productive level of conflict and ultimately, to constructive and well-timed resolution.  The problem in conflict, however, is not whether the other party listens to us, but rather whether we listen to and understand the other party’s perspective.  Only after we have listened to the other party will that party want to listen to us.  Only after the other party feels understood will he or she want to understand and be influenced by us.

By seeking first to identify and understand the needs and interests of the other party, we create an environment that increases the chances of resolving the dispute in a way that is satisfactory to all parties involved.  Listening lets the conflict take its natural course by giving the other party permission to disagree, express strong opinions, and demonstrate a passion for their ideas.  It does not try to resolve conflict too soon, and often, does not try to resolve conflict at all.  It demonstrates a respect for individual differences and encourages an environment based understanding.  Listening also helps achieve a true “win-win” resolution by helping the other party identify the criteria that defines their “win.”  In addition, the trust and relationship bonding that occurs as a result of this process will prepare the other party to listen to our needs.

A second critical skill required to model the behaviors of constructive conflict is confrontation.  One of the more significant reasons conflicts become destructive is because we avoid them.  We are afraid of hurting feelings, injuring self-confidence, or being impolite, and sometimes we are not sure whether it is a problem of theirs or a problem of ours.

In order to receive the benefits of conflict, however, we must create opportunities for divergent interaction.  Confrontation allows us to keep problems on the table.  It forces issues to the surface and generates dialogue.  Constructive confrontation communicates the problem, but also demonstrates our continued desire to listen to the other party.  By engaging in face-to-face interaction, managers demonstrate mutual respect, the willingness to explore new ideas, and a commitment to agenda-free resolution.

Finally, collaboration is the process of ensuring that both parties in a conflict benefit from the interaction.  Project managers must model this win-win thinking by not rushing to a compromise solution just to move forward.  They must insist on agreements that all parties find satisfactory and are committed to implementing.  Collaboration is based on going beyond competitive positions to establish common needs and interests.  Collaboration recognizes that constructive resolution is not about your way or my way.  It is about a better way.

Project managers who model collaborative behavior communicate openly and refuse to see limitations that prevent individual needs from getting met.  Creativity and innovation flourish because these leaders help colleagues search for the underlying common goals that demonstrate how everyone is an important contributor and critical to final solutions.  Collaborative project managers also are adept at redefining problems in ways that compel employees to participate.  They tap into the individual motivators that make each employee feel understood and critical for success.  A collaborative focus establishes an atmosphere of trust and understanding because it considers both objective, business interests as well as the often overlooked emotional needs required for buy-in and commitment.

Mediating Conflict

Project leaders often are asked or compelled to intervene and facilitate the conflict resolution process.  As mediators, their role should not be to help the parties agree.  Instead, their objective is to enhance understanding and develop constructive conflict resolution skills within the team or across functional areas.

Mediation is not solving the problems presented by project colleagues because ultimately, that only creates additional dependence upon their leadership and a fear of risk taking.  Instead, mediation is the process of getting the competing factions on the same side of the table, focused on a common set of objectives and on creating their own solutions.  Mediators facilitate confrontation and help both parties listen to one another.

Project managers that model the principles of constructive conflict may apply different approaches that tap into the unique needs of their employees and organization.  However, they should incorporate a common set of objectives founded on the principles required to promote collaborative resolution.  These requirements will prevent destructive disputes, guide the collaborative process, and let creativity and innovation flourish.

By accepting and encouraging conflict, project managers will establish an environment prepared to navigate the challenges of change.  When listening is used as the means of guiding conflict from positional disagreement to an exchange of thoughts and ideas, organization leaders will create the right balance and intensity required to maintain energetic participation and enhance decision making.  As team members adopt a collaborative focus, they will learn to seek solutions that will satisfy the interests they represent while simultaneously satisfying the interest of others, and conflict will become a chance to learn, innovate, and grow.