Learning from Differences: #6 of Eight Disciplines for Planned Change

Learning from Differences

Differences are the only sources of learning we have. Now, that’s a bold statement! Think about it. Can you think of something you’ve learned that didn’t come from something different? Some people think that I’m rather brilliant; however, if you put me in a room full of clones of me, there is nothing I can learn from any of them. I already know everything they know. I could learn from you though, simply because you are different from me in thoughts, beliefs, life experience, etc. If you can come up with something other than differences that we might learn from, please share in the “Comments” areas below!

For the moment, let’s go with the notion that differences really are the only source of learning we have. When used for learning, differences become the precursor of synergy, wherein the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; creativity, where something new is brought into the world; and the new productivity that can come from both synergy and creativity. Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline wrote of “The Learning Organization” which became a popular goal that has only rarely been achieved. Why has such a worthy goal been so difficult to accomplish? Too often, however, differences are used too finitely to determine who wins and who loses. Without thinking too much, who wins if it’s more vs. less, top vs. bottom, or fast vs. slow? Who traditionally wins if we focus on white vs. black or male vs. female?

When stuck in a win/lose mode, differences are the source of wasteful power struggles or creativity-deadening conformity aimed at avoiding power struggles. Too often, organizations overvalue conformity—those with critical information or new or differing ideas are warned not to “rock-the-boat” making sound and current data a rare commodity. The Bay of Pigs and Challenger disasters are but two highly dramatic examples of this phenomenon. New, differing, and needed ideas are too often stifled by our need to be safe within finite organizational cultures.

The ability to learn from differences is a critical use-of-self and use-of-group skill for leaders and other change agents. It will support them in maintaining the systemic, non-judgmental perspective necessary to use the differences within their systems for the learning and synergy needed to collaboratively invent an effective change process. Given our socialized propensity toward operating from the finite perspective, this is more easily said than done. The infinite perspective helps as it allows change managers the support of strong and long-lasting partnerships and teams. Such support is doubly critical when the stress of change has moves us swiftly back to the traditional, conformity-oriented way of operating. With support a speedy return to learning from differences can then be provided as needed.

Learn to Make a Difference in the World of People, Teams, and Organizations http://bit.ly/zFCNfv

Infinite Power: #5 of Eight Disciplines for Planned Change

INFINITE POWER

Traditional change management approaches often call for identifying the person or people who are not in accord with a change project and fixing or replacing them with people who are. This process typically leads to a series of finite, win/lose power struggles that change little and waste much systemic energy on non-productive activities. Noting that win/lose processes will, in the long run, always generate lose/lose results, an alternative approach would be to focus on infinite, win/win change goals and strategies.

An important aspect of playing infinitely is to focus on changing the quality of relationships within the target system rather than trying to change or fix members who do not seem in accord with a proposed change. This is directly related to the processes of conflict management and team-building mentioned in previous sections.

Focusing on changing the quality of relationships rather than trying to fix or change people or groups of people minimizes the need for power struggles. When open, collaborative decision-making processes are used, most individual needs can be met while focusing on developing strategies and tactics aimed at the change goals.

I remember a situation in a high-value, light manufacturing company. The head of manufacturing was upset with the head of sales for bringing in an order that she couldn’t fulfill by the date promised with the personnel to which she was limited by a budget crunch. The sales manager insisted that that was what the customer wanted and that he was under pressure to increase revenue flow. Their boss, the general manager, gave me the job of helping them resolve their issues. I asked the boss if either of the constraints could be eased. He said, “No,” very politely, but firmly. I interviewed both parties to help get them into a listening mode by my listening extensively to them, so that both were feeling heard before meeting together. It took awhile for them to get past their self-righteousness and figure out that if they worked together they could short-circuit the issues they had with each other. The detail of “working together” was interesting: They decided to do monthly forecasts together and that a manufacturing representative would go along on customer meetings involving potential sales over a certain amount. Yes, it took three hours including lunch to work all of this out, and we created a process through which both could win in addition to the organization winning! With persistence, patience, and enough passion, infinite solutions are most always available!

Learn to Make a Difference in the World of People, Teams, and Organizations http://bit.ly/zFCNfv

People, Fishes and Conflict

As a scuba diver I am witness to a host of differences among fish, yet they seem to live in relative peace. I see three-foot long barracuda with jagged teeth hanging not too far from scads of two-inch blue or brown chromis and slightly larger purple Creole wrasse. I see spotted drum of black and white stripes and polka dots living in proximity to parrotfish of rainbow colors.

There’s more I could share about the fishes of all differences of color, size, shape, gender configurations, etc., but the point is that fishes have all kinds of differences to which they don’t seem to pay any attention unless they are hungry. Then one fish is likely to eat another fish—but it’s a matter of life and death, of physical survival. Oh, I suppose I’ve seen skirmishes over territory, but these are minor and short-lived with no damage to either. They live in a world that is relatively conflict-free.

People, on the other hand, have exponentially fewer inherent differences of color, shape, size, etc., yet manage to use them to create conflict with extraordinary regularity. If there are no inherent differences we are more than capable of using differences of preference, opinion, and belief to create conflict—as if they were matters of life and death—when the only things that are at stake are our dear little egos.

As an organization development consultant, psychologist, former human resources director, and just plain human being I have spent over 30 years witnessing, working with, and informally but diligently studying conflictual situations of all kinds.

In addition, I have suffered the pain of the almost seven decades of conflicts and power struggles that have been created and dealt with in my own life. Accordingly, I’d like to think that I have gained some modicum of wisdom that might help others moderate, or at least modulate, the phthisic and enervating conflicts that are part of their lives at work and at home.

I plan to share such wisdom as it is through a blog series of which this is the beginning, through my twitter account @michaelfbroom, through a five part webinar series, and a book that just might result from all of this!

The plan is to offer a few paragraphs each week in this blog, which will also announce the webinars when they are ready. In other words, stay tuned!

Michael F. Broom, Ph.D.

October 3, 2011

The 30,000 Foot View

We’ve covered a lot of ground in the last few weeks, reviewing our definition of OD and some of the key characteristics of successful OD practitioners. There’s a lot to absorb, and there is a lot more to come!

If you would appreciate an opportunity to look at all of this from 30,000 feet and see how it all fits together into our three-dimensional meta-model that incorporates the levels of organizations OD practitioners work with, the stages of change processes, and the disciplines required for us to be successful working across the stages and the levels, please join me on Wednesday for a free 90-minute webinar. You can submit your questions and I will explain everything! Please click here for more information and to register!

What Do OD Practitioners Do?

OD Practitioners “collaborate with leaders and their groups.” Two key words here: “collaborate” and “leaders.” OD starts from the top of an organization or organizational unit—its leader. Working together—albeit collaboratively—the practitioner and the leader come to agreement about the change goals of the project, the basic strategies to be used, and other important perspectives that will be explored when we discuss Contracting and Re-contracting.

Many potential users of OD have the notion that we will fix whatever their issue is for them. After all, we are “the experts.” And, we are experts! We are experts who understand how to create and facilitate the human processes that drive all organizational work regardless of how automated that work may be.

A core element of those human processes is, of course, the leader her or him self. Accordingly, the work of OD calls for the leader to lead the project, not the OD practitioner. We do work in partnership with the leader to facilitate effective goal identification, and problem-solving processes toward root-cause solutions. In other words we collaborate with leaders and their groups to identify and solve their own problems. We work from the perspective of the Chinese maxim, “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.”  In the world of OD, leaders lead their own projects in collaboration with OD practitioners as designers and facilitators of the human processes involved.

Maintaining these roles (client as project leader and practitioner as process consultant and facilitator) can be problematic. Practitioners have been known to acquiesce to leader requests to take over project leadership.  Practitioners have been known to take project leadership from acquiescing clients. Both are risky as the leader becomes a bystander and practitioner carries both roles. Even if the project is successful on it face, future successes become uncertain as a key success factor (the practitioner) moves on to other projects. To combat such happenstances, leader and practitioner must distinguish the two roles during their initial contracting. Both, then, must recontract whenever necessary to reestablish the appropriate roles. This is not to say that the practitioner cannot lead some aspects of the OD project such as leading a conflict management portion of a team-building session. Still, that should only be done to demonstrate how it can be done so that the leader can do his or herself at later opportunities.

We will address the rest of our definition of OD—the results OD is after and how OD works—in the next two blog posts. Stay tuned!