Is it possible to pre-design and manage change?
If we do, is it really change, or is it just the functional implementation of something we have already decided, based on what we already have?
Is designed change a bit like planned spontaneity?
For change to become truly integrated, it needs to emerge and evolve. Pre-designing exactly what things will be like after change is like trying to pre-determine the weather for next week.
When the burning platform for change is something negative that we are attempting to overcome, we simplistically fall into immediate solution thinking: The suggested solution is simply the exact opposite of the problem, which does nothing to understand or recognise why the problem is happening in the first place.
As we move to design new ways of working in a post-pandemic, video call-enabled world, we are fighting against a fundamental personality difference, and it’s not the most obvious one.
Tendencies toward introversion and extroversion create preferences for interpersonal contact, with more extroverted people needing to think out loud and more introverted types needing more reflective time, but hybrid working can clearly work for both. As we approach the challenges of hybrid working, our differences in extraversion and introversion are not what causes the most difficulty. There is another overlooked difference that creates much more trouble.
Firstly, let’s consider the question of whether we should come into the office at all.
We could argue that working remotely is the future. It provides freedom and mobility, and it’s better for the planet. Some businesses benefitted hugely from the enforced conditions of lockdown, they filled up their piggy banks with maximum billings as they churned through tasks with minimum costs. For such businesses, there is an extremely strong argument for remote working from the perspective of effectiveness, lifestyle and environment.
We could also argue that chopping up work interactions into one-hour chunks is an inorganic way of managing time. It deprives us of the unplanned, informal, off-topic conversations that lead to vital awarenesses and discoveries, and the quality of interaction is slightly impoverished through video interactions. It may be more efficient for functional work, but connection, rapport, camaraderie, culture and teamwork are harder to achieve. The cost of missing out on these vital human aspects of work is felt longer term as the bonds between us weaken.
When you consider both of these realities, hybrid is clearly the answer, but how?
Here’s the double bind:
- If you leave it for people to make their own decisions, some will demand more clarity, and some will take the opportunity to never show up in person.
- If you create a clear policy, that policy will be unpopular. There is simply no one-size-fits-all solution.
As soon as you make a suggestion one way or another, you will bump into well-rehearsed ‘scripts’ about what works for people and what they need.
So, if designing a solution and imposing it will please very few people, what is the answer?
Before we get to that, notice that the problem here is not so much hybrid working, but imposing an approach to it. The conflict is with the imposition of policy. Let’s consider the typically unrecognised personality difference that creates this difficulty:
Some people are a little more left-brained, and others are a little more right-brained in their approaches.* Most learning models recognise this difference:
- Left-brained thinking asks ‘why?’ or ‘what?’, favouring static, explicit or factual information, for theorising or reflecting to know something.
- Right-brained thinking asks ‘how?’ or ‘what if?’ questions, favouring dynamic, process, and dependant information, so they can actively or pragmatically do something.
This difference in processing style can be seen in ways of working, leadership style, and attitude toward hybrid working policies. Individuals with these extremes of difference in personality do not see the wisdom or benefit in each other’s approach.
As professional coaches, we spend much time debating ethical quandaries like the blurry boundary between coaching and therapy and broader contextual or systemic factors beyond the one-to-one coaching relationship.
Whilst wrestling with ethical questions one-by-one provides valuable experience and gives you plenty of fodder for reflection and supervision conversations, do they lead to useful decision-making principles, more congruent values or a clearer moral compass?
We can debate ethics all day long, but what do we learn about the principles that guide us? I rarely fall into ethical quandaries regarding coaching because I have a very clear set of deal breakers shaped by 20 years of experience.
I would like to share three of them with you, but I would also like to be clear that I am not suggesting you adopt them. These principles work for me, but I regularly turn away business and say no to people who need help if the conditions are not right. You may have different ethics and values, these are merely offered to enrich the debate:
Culture may indeed eat strategy for breakfast, and if we are not careful, it can eat people for breakfast too!
As Sun Tzu wrote, "Even the finest sword plunged into salt water will rust."
Most leaders recognise the importance of culture.
An individual who is inspired is 125% more productive than one who is merely satisfied. Can you think of any other variable that can more than double performance?
Mismatch in culture is the most common reason why most mergers and acquisitions fail to live up to their expectations. Some studies suggest that as many as 90% of mergers fail.
One of the challenges that people concerned with culture in most organisations face is that culture needs to be communicated, but when we define it, we make it a static thing rather than seeing it as systemic and dynamic.
A culture is a living system, and it’s communicated through everyday micro behaviours: What is tolerated, prioritised, recognised, ignored, encouraged, discouraged, laughed at etc.
Leaders think of culture top-down, but culture happens bottom-up ( see blog on top-down or bottom-up thinking ).
What happens when we think of culture not as a static quality but rather as a live, changing context?
Whether we are leading through a merger or coaching for performance, we need to hold a space for people to work through differences and keep them glued together enough for the process to remain functional.
In my opinion, Schismogenesis is the most interesting concept to consider. Coined by Gregory Bateson from ‘schism’ meaning division, and ‘genesis’ meaning a process of origin, it describes the process of how things come together and break apart and highlights the fundamentals of division that occur between individuals or groups.
Bateson suggested that schismogenesis can occur in two different forms: complementary and symmetrical:
Complementary Schismogenesis happens when the behaviour of one person or group elicits a contrasting response from another person or group. The differences polarise, leading to an escalating cycle of opposing behaviours.
The best illustration of this I have come across is the Framework of Organisational Tensions by Robert Quinn. It so clearly illustrates how some positive actions are in opposition to other equally positive actions. That difference can create tensions that escalate actions into the negative zone when they are more extreme and less helpful.
Organisational performance is most affected by culture, and culture is most influenced by leadership behaviour. According to HBR
, an inspired employee is two and a quarter times more effective than one who is merely satisfied. Can you think of any other variable in business that will make a 225% difference? Therefore, developing leaders to create a compelling culture and inspire the people is likely to give you the most bang for your buck.
Simple so far. Now we come to the trickier questions; what is leadership, and what abilities need to be developed?
Most leadership theories focus on either the traits of the leader (like autocratic, democratic, bureaucratic or charismatic) or focus on ways in which the leader exerts their power and influence (like situational, transactional or transformational). The well-rounded leader needs the awareness and flexibility to shift between these different styles, and when they do, the lines between these categories begin to blur.
For example, leaders are required to:
- Make themselves visible but also not hog the limelight
- Be clear and decisive but also be open-minded and curious
- Prevent failure but also take risks
- Set clear outcomes but also be open to change
- Plan actions in advance but also be agile and responsive
- Get clarity and be data-led but also act decisively when things are ambiguous
- Make things simple but also remain aware of the complexity and nuances
- Understand individual circumstances but also act for the good of the collective
- Drive high performance but also prevent churn or burnout
Leadership is not a job title, it's a way of being.