An Introduction to Managing Multiplicity

There are so many business and community challenges that need multi-perspective thinking, contribution and innovation, so being able to manage multiplicity and engage the whole is important for leaders.

If too much separation and lack of understanding other perspectives brings out our worst, what does wholeness do?

As the command/control way of governing gives way in the face of information proliferation and virtual connection, it is key for leaders [and all of us] to get better at navigating the multiple realities that make up our day-to-day environments.  We need one another to make sense of all that is going on around us, to make meaning together. This is more than just an appreciation of the value and potential of the whole but clear strategies and processes for tapping into the whole in ways that are open, dynamic and interactive.  It’s not just a nice thing to do; it’s absolutely necessary for organizational and community flourishing.

Leaders are often encouraged to ‘surround yourself with talent.’  The fact of the matter is, leaders are already surrounded by talent.   If that’s the case, the question becomes ‘How do you tap it?’

Inclusion of all frames and perspectives

When we want to attract the best thinking in our organizations and communities, it’s important to not think of top-down or bottom-up but of the whole, not just of a little representation or a little diversity but of the whole.

·      What is the configuration and pattern of completeness?

·      What can tap unlimited potential? 

·     What will bring fresh views of the truth to the table and elevate the conversation?

If it feels too messy to you, think of old-fashioned barn-raisings.  Why not do that now, in new ways? What new ways of thinking can you attract to build what your organization needs for the future?

We can invoke our own version of crowdsourcing. With the complexity of issues now, we need all the innovation and ideas we can tap.

As leaders, you’re going to have to relate to, include and deal with the whole system somehow, sometime on issues that have far-reaching impact.  Why not now?

People sometimes talk about participative management as abdication of leadership.  

But this kind of radical participation—bringing a whole plant together—is not abdication, 

but just the opposite.  Leadership is given life by relationship, by good conversation.  

The more relationship, the more leadership.  This is what the web of inclusion is about. 

Jim Staley, President, Roadway, Fast Company July 2001, p. 56

Collective Work on New Habits

Here’s a comment I received from CrowbarJoe about last week’s posting on reframing and habits:

Yes, I think it is hard to change ourselves, but not because we don't see or believe in the new vision. 

I think it's hard to let go of the old. Sometimes we feel that letting go is the same as denying. But we can reaffirm the past value, and still move on - kind of like the abhorrent 3/5 compromise that got our forefathers temporarily past a divisive issue and on to creating a nation. (I'm guessing Egypt might benefit from a 3/5-type of compromise right now.)

So here's the script:
"Yes, it was an accomplishment. Yes, we felt good about it. It will always be there, and we can always be proud of it when we remember it. Now, let's figure out how to create this new structure to better leverage our new reality. Here's an idea: instead of starting the day with that first cup of coffee, how about a first glass of orange juice?"

Let's not be afraid to take a next (or first) step on the spiral.

I agree that the issue with changing isn’t that ‘we don’t see or believe in the new vision’.  That’s the most interesting part of it.  We get the importance, but we can’t seem to get over to that new reality that we can clearly see.

Letting go of the past is part of it, yes.  We often need to acknowledge the value of something in the past as we let go of it.  Whenever I attempt to leave my coffee habit behind, I have nostalgic memories of sitting in coffee shops in different parts of the world having great conversations.  I remember the way that felt, and I sigh because I don’t want to give it up.

‘Daily drift’ is another part of changing habits.  We tend to slide into certain behaviors out of habit, especially when we are focusing on something else.  At least, I do.  While I’m  working on something I want to finish and get out, I find that cup of coffee in my hand, even though I might have made the commitment to letting go of coffee.  I have to pay careful attention to some new desired behavior, especially when there is some element of addiction, as with coffee.  I have to practice new behaviors over and over to make new habits.

But, what makes that practice likely to succeed?  What has me keep up the practicing?  My experience is that it I succeed when I am part of a group that is practicing the same or similar new behaviors—I need the “we”.  I believe that we need the support of partners to accompany us along the way.  I have friends in my neighborhood to walk with in the mornings—if they go out of town or are unavailable, I am MUCH less likely to walk.  We have created a container for the practice of walking that supports us.

What does this mean for organizations?

It could mean that organizations have greater ease in acting on new frames and creating new habits. Organizations can set the direction of focus and co-create ways to practice new behaviors—together.

I worked with a wonderful organization a few years ago that wanted to increase engagement and staff satisfaction. The leadership demonstrated support for the project by getting the whole organization involved in our conversations and our reframing of what engagement looked like for different areas of the system.  We all agreed on behaviors that would make a difference, and each area chose an ongoing project of importance to them where they would apply the new behaviors.  This was the ‘practice’ portion.

Some changes occurred, and there was some slight shift in the organizational culture, just by virtue of having focused attention on the topic.  But the practicing of new behaviors never really occurred across the organization, even after the top team, managers and staff had co-created the process and agreed to the terms.  Practicing took too much time, attention and focus.  The project drifted, and when I pointed out the obvious drift, the response of the leadership was just like when we try to shift personal habits: we didn’t have time, I couldn’t focus on it, it was easier to do things the way we had always done them, even though we were not increasing staff engagement….

They weren’t really committed, together.  Commitment is different  from mandating. Mandating doesn’t usually change a company’s culture, but real reframing and commitment to new behaviors will.  Organizations have a tremendous tool at their disposal for making change—the collective—and if the  reframing captures the will of the collective, new practices will pay off.  Group habits will shift.

Here’s a simple way of looking at the move toward new habits:

• ·      See the desired new [the reframe]
• ·      COMMIT
• ·      Acknowledge the old ways
• ·      Practice
• ·      Observe how the group is doing
• ·      Pay attention to the benefits of the new practice
• ·      Tweak systems and structures to support the new habit
• ·      Keep supporting  the new habit

 What do you think it takes to move from new sight to new habits?

Reframing and Habits

Seeing, Believing, Moving, Changing

A couple of months ago, I was presenting some ideas about R^2: Reframing Reality as part of a presentation on the Leadership Literacies program.

We were interacting about different ways of shifting perspective, of different ways to be able to see newly. One of the participants, someone I very much admire, said:

“Well, these are great ways to shift the way we see—I like them--but changing ourselves, that’s what’s difficult.  It’s so hard.”

I was stumped for a few minutes by what he had said. 

I have seen many insights and aha’s occur when individuals or groups simply choose to exercise their option to frame something differently, to ask new questions and to assume for a moment that there are other ways of seeing a situation, a problem, an opportunity, a culture, or a person.  It can be easy to attract new ways of seeing and framing a conversation.

One of the beauties of understanding the malleability of our realities is that we can see newly and act immediately on that new knowledge, on the recognition of patterns we might not have seen before. 

I’ve seen organizations shift their strategies in a day on the basis of having understood a situation differently than before. I’ve seen communities create new alignments overnight after having opened up to see one another with new eyes. So, what’s so hard?

Then I realized that my colleague was talking about changing ingrained ways of behaving; he was talking about what it takes to change habits of behavior and habits of mind.

He’s right.  That can be difficult. And, it can be what’s called for long-term when we reframe our thinking.

Several things can happen:

• ·      Immediate shifting because of a new insight [Oh, our clients think differently than we thought—let’s shift to accommodate them.]
• ·      Perception of new possibilities but a ‘snapback’ to the old ways of thinking and operating.  Maybe we don't really believe in the new frame yet.[We now see that everyone in the community is a stakeholder in what we are planning, but it’s too hard to include them all in decision making.]
• ·      After recognition, the beginning of a spiraling process to change habits and patterns of behavior—designing new personal, organizational or community systems and behaviors that reflect the newly perceived reality: policies and procedures, structures.  This takes discipline and commitment. Hard.  [It’s affecting our employees negatively that we expect them to put in 60 hours a week on a regular basis without some form of additional compensation.  We have to shift the way we think about our staff and act accordingly.]

Anyone who has attempted to shift their eating habits, get more exercise or discipline themselves to meditate knows what I’m talking about and what my colleague was talking about.  Acting on new perceptions and realities—that’s our greatest challenge.

Perhaps our greatest ongoing inquiry is always about how we can successfully shift ourselves based on a new frame of reference that demands new behaviors and habits.

Next:  Collective Work on New Habits

Reframing the Purpose of Dialogue, Part 2

Circling, Time Boxing and Consent

In the last post a couple of days ago, I wrote about opportunities for participants in an important dialogue to practice being more focused, attentive and succinct in their interactions, using time boxing and conversation circles.

Somehow, when the importance of using inclusive dialogue for important topics came to the forefront as a business and community building tool in the past fifteen or so years, not very much was offered about HOW to manage these larger-scale dialogues.  They could easily become unwieldy: dominated by a few voices, long-winded with few concrete outcomes, and as noted before, they could be deficit-based and confrontational, focusing on what was wrong rather than on what might work. This did not make a particularly good recipe for full voice and trust which helps get our collective brain moving.

So, sometimes, it’s a good idea to ask participants to reflect for a few minutes on their own positions and best ideas, then to offer clear contributions in timed rounds that help us ‘cut to the chase.’

Then comes taking the dialogue into decision-making.

In the sociocratic/dynamic governance model, decisions are made by consent, a wonderful concept. Rather than voting and ending up with winners and losers, important decisions can be made by consent of all present. With consent, you can find out quickly if there is sufficient support for a direction or action, to know if the group is giving support to go forward.

In the case of the group of 75 global company managers I am using as a example in this case, they had already had a couple of hours of presentations and ‘questions and answer’ sessions, so that they knew the proposals being offered inside and out.  Then, they had done timed rounds to say what was ‘right’ about the proposal. They were spiraling toward the ability to give consent.

Consent decision-making is based on finding the parameters of what someone can live with.  A person may have a tweak to make or a slight concern, but often, that small concerns used to derail decision-making and hold up progress.   Now, participants would have an opportunity to object, but this type of objection has a fundamental difference to it. In this round, participants are asked,

“Do you have a paramount objection?” 

“If so, what is your recommendation for coming closer to our goals? What will make this work?”

These objections are asked for and offered in the spirit of finding solutions and alignment, of getting as specific as possible about what is needed.  It is done in the context of coming ever closer to the best solution to an aim or goal.

So, the table groupings did a timed round and surfaced all serious objections, made recommendations and amended the proposals.  If the early parts of the dialogue have been structured well, as it was in this case, this is usually a straightforward process.

If there are no serious, paramount objections in the room, there is a quick consent round and everyone celebrates the forward momentum and the mandate that everyone has agreed to.

What we did with this particular group, which is only together once every couple of years, was to then take the time to tap their best ideas and recommendations for tweaking and implementing.

Once again, each person at each table in the room, had two minutes to offer their own key insights and recommendations, which were captured by the conversation leader at the table and then reported out to the whole room.

Great ideas were offered, alignment was achieved, everyone got equal opportunity to offer their unique perspective and expertise, and it didn’t take forever.

This is just a snapshot of the dialogue and consent process, but you can get a sense of how powerful this reframing of dialogue can be in some situations.

The purpose of dialogue is to hear one another and engage with one another on behalf of something important.  Dialogue should end up connecting us more and taking us somewhere. Otherwise, why do it?

Contact me if you want to learn more about this way of working.

Reframing the Purpose of Dialogue

Stalking Generative Solutions

I was watching a group of about 75 company leaders from a chain of global offices grapple with reaching alignment on a series of strategic initiatives.  Even though they were arranged in groupings of no more than six at a table, they began to spin, everyone expressing their positions, desires and concerns without much thought to the impact of their statements.  Mostly, they refuted one another’s remarks and constructions, behaving very much in the way we were taught to behave in school--to critique and refute, to find fault, to debate, to point out what’s wrong with each point made. 

The ability to critique is a good skill to have but not fully useful unless it is accompanied by another set of skills— the ability to look for the strengths of arguments, see connections between ideas, and notice insights that allow us to move forward rather than remain stuck in a bog of belief – belief that the way to make a contribution in a group is to find what might be wrong or a mistake or a not completely thought-out position. From my vantage point watching the group, it looked like they were engaging in a kind of stalking behavior, stalking errors and mistakes. Having seen this phenomenon fairly often in facilitating large-scale events, I can say that it sometimes looks and feels like bullying.  You’ve all been there at one time or another.  It can sound like this:

‘Here’s what’s wrong with your idea.”

“Here’s my concern with you.”

“Where did you get that idea?”

“No, that’s not it at all.”

“What you’re saying really upsets me.”

“Oh, really, and what about when xx happens?”

“I don’t like it.”

“No, no, no, no, no!”

“The fundamental error in what you are saying is…”

“I have the floor now, and I’m going to set you straight on a few things.”

Most of us are good at this, even masterful, but does it make for generative dialogue—for exploration that moves us forward and toward informed decisions? Usually, we have come together to find solutions for shared purposes, but we easily end up posturing defending, derailing and talking over one another. Not a good use of all the time, money, and jet fuel it takes to get people into one room.

Conversations are ALWAYS consequential.

What you say matters. How you say it matters.  

What if we go about dialogue in a different way…

Circling and Time Boxing

Fortunately, in the case of the global company leaders mentioned above, we had agreed ahead of time to have some open discussion and then to build a circle process as the meeting progressed toward final decision-making on strategic initiatives.

We began to practice speaking powerfully and specifically [rather than just random offering of opinions] about a particular proposed initiative. First, we asked each table to take a couple of minutes to outline any clarifying questions on the topic.  There was a timekeeper at each table and a discussion leader selected from the group. Once those were answered around the room, each person got one minute to give quick reactions to the proposal.

Next, we asked for each table to reflect on:

“What’s right about this proposal?”

Each person was allocated up to two minutes to make their points, until every person around the table had been heard.  This was happening at every table around the room--full voice being played out simultaneously.

Each group quickly reported out their results to the whole room.

By this time, we were ready to move in to decision-making mode.  Amazing.  This simple, focused process provided the discipline that most so-called ‘dialogues’ are often missing.  It’s really not difficult to clarify positions and possibilities with intentional discipline.  It was a relief to the group to have their energy funneled into a conversation that not only allowed each person to be heard but also asked them to clarify their thinking--to offer the condensed best of their expertise and ideas to the rest of the group.  Rather than creating anxiety, the time boxing relaxed the group, and each table found their ability to report out clearly and succinctly was enhanced.

When we take seriously the fact that stakes are high and we have the right people in the room, it makes sense to provide a framing that allows those people to do their best work.

What I described above in just one of many ways to do it. Some of you will recognize the connection to the sociocratic [known as Dynamic Governance in the US] circle process, which I adapted for this dialogue. This simple way of working helps us quickly contribute what we know and to hear what others know and offer. It easily disciplines us to offer our best:

·      What contribution do I have on this topic? What’s most important to say?

·      What don’t I need to say?

·      What’s most important for us to focus on?

Next time, I’ll deal with the decision-making process we used. If you want to learn more about it, contact me.