Schismogenesis & Culture

“To be the most (insert success criteria) company in the (insert sector) industry.” is not a vision; it’s a commercial ambition. A vision is precisely that. You need to be able to close your eyes and imagine it. The images in the backs of our minds and the emotions they evoke drive our everyday behaviour toward an outcome. As you will have seen from previous articles, I think ‘bottom-up’. My consulting, consulting and behavioural design works by evaluating everything based on how it lands with an individual human nervous system. In this article, I will introduce the overlooked, essential human element:  LinkedIn has always been my favourite social media platform. I don’t even think of it as social media; I think of it as a functional tool. Unlike other platforms that evolved based on user behaviour with the tail wagging the dog, LinkedIn has always known what it’s there to do. Their vision is: “To create economic opportunity for every member of the global workforce.” We all know what that means. It is clear, coherent, purposeful, and evokes mental images and feelings if you think about it. Most consultancies (and Chat GPT) will suggest that your vision should be customer-focused, have a global impact, be innovative and high quality, be simple and based on values. Many inspirational vision statements have those qualities, but that’s not why they work. As with most MBA thinking, this is an accurate, rational breakdown, but the human element still needs to be added. You could book a leadership away day and follow these principles to author a statement that should work; you may even design some funky slides and select some emotive music, but the vision could still fail to catch fire when you put it out there. Over the past two decades, I have seen so many businesses wasting time on vision and strategy that won’t work because it doesn’t connect with the individual's ambition, reality or sentiment. It may be unrealistically aspirational, incoherent, not related to the activity of the business, incongruent with how the business is run, top-down thinking that only sounds good to the board and shareholders, or based on ‘authored’ values that do not faintly resemble actual priorities and behaviour people experience on an everyday basis. If you want to un-MBA your thinking and connect with people, I suggest you challenge your vision by empathising with the following human needs: “I need to see what you mean” When you hear or read IKEA ’s vision: “To create a better everyday life for the many people.” you can close your eyes and see it. I don’t know about you, but I see beautiful, practical, cheap stuff filling the homes of millions of people who would otherwise have to put up with ugly, impractical, cheap stuff. It is a congruent expression of what IKEA is here to do. “I need to be included” Consider this vision statement by Nike : “To bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete* in the world.” (*If you have a body, you are an athlete). Reference to athletes ignites the inspiration and joy of celebrating our sports heroes, but the real genius is the last bit in brackets. It makes all the difference. For your vision to work, there must be no barrier to entry. “It needs to make sense to me” Check out the plain language simplicity of this vision by Google : “To provide access to the world’s information in one click.” Could it be simpler? We know what the objective is at every level. We know what every product is innovating towards. From a human perspective, it creates a clear sense of purpose in the world and clarity of mind. “I need to believe you” You may disagree with Elon Musk, but do you doubt him? Tesla ’s vision: “To create the most compelling car company of the 21st century by driving the world’s transition to electric vehicles.” Has been demonstrated in reality. When Tesla set out, their vision was ridiculed by the automotive industry, but now we all believe it. Their ambitious innovation and their agile speed to market have made Tesla the second most profitable car manufacturer in the world and forced other manufacturers to catch up. “I need to feel it” Patagonia ’s emotionally leaded vision, “We’re in business to save our home planet.” tells us what they are all about. The choice of words “Our home planet” makes all the difference. Substitute the words ‘the environment’, and the emotion diminishes. I doubt they will achieve this outcome single-handedly, but the challenge is so huge and emotively purposeful that the ultimate outcome doesn’t matter. It’s an emotive reason to choose their products or turn up for work each day, and it’s a bright guiding light to shine on every tiny decision they make. “I need to know who to be” When I worked with Apple a decade ago, I was blown away by the culture. Everyone I worked with had a tacit sense of what was Apple and what wasn’t. Their vision is “To make the best products on earth, and to leave the world better than we found it.” It focuses on the product, the customer experience and the company's impact on the world. If you become overly concerned about anything that isn’t in service of those things, you are not Apple. The backfire effect: There is only one thing worse than no vision - having a vision that provokes a negative reaction. I find Disney ’s vision deeply disappointing. “To entertain, inform and inspire people around the globe through the power of unparalleled storytelling, reflecting the iconic brands, creative minds and innovative technologies that make ours the world’s premier entertainment company.” It’s a fair reflection of what they are here to do and how they do it, but it’s not visionary. Too many business-speak bolt-ons have taken them away from their brand essence of “Magic”. Disney tells the stories that develop the moral compasses of our children; its creativity and innovation inspire us as adults, and it creates shared experiences and a sense of belonging for families and communities. Disney influences the quality of our lives - They need to call me - I will help them lose the management speak! I’m also disappointed when brands have a vision but lose their way. They fail to stay true to it, or it gets watered down, and it always seems to be for commercial reasons - saving money or making more. Starbucks has a great vision: “To inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time” , but when you get a mental picture of these words and compare it to your local Starbucks franchise, do they match? I’m not criticising the vision statement; it’s a really good one, I’m disappointed that the business has failed to pay enough attention to service standards and environment to keep the ‘vibe’. The Facebook/Meta vision: “To give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” started out as true, but the algorithms designed to keep us scrolling and fuel their commercial performance create echo chambers and divide us as a society. For this reason, the vision creates a negative experience. To summarise: I think of a vision statement as imaginative storytelling. I believe it should be evaluated based on the visual and emotive response it creates in the reader/listener. It needs to be authentic, it needs to get the response you want, and then you need to stick to it. Do you agree?

Hypnosis debunked and influence decoded. 

A post from UK election day

Intending to be as helpful as possible, I have written a longer-than-usual post. I’m covering this in more detail than I normally would because I believe the ability to have performance conversations, give feedback, and approach potentially difficult conversations in a supportive, challenging, and motivational way is vital for any leader or manager. So many leaders find these essential conversations tricky, but with some changes in perspective and a slightly different approach, they can change from being the ones you dread to the ones you look forward to. A few years ago, one of my colleagues watched me give some fast, clear, informal feedback to one of my team members. Afterwards, they said, “You just told that person clearly that what they have done is not good enough, and they left the room happy and energised. How the hell did you do that?” Like all leaders, I have my blind spots and weaknesses, but I am consistently good at motivating, developing and leading people. I have designed workshops and coached hundreds of leaders to increase their awareness and skill in these interactions. I even wrote a book about it in 2008 with my business partner at the time. This continues to be the most challenging and most important interpersonal leadership ability: Research by Bain & Company found that, on average, an inspired employee is 2.25 times more productive than a merely satisfied one. Can you think of anything else you could do as a leader that makes this difference to organisational performance? Interactions that encourage and inspire should be little and often. Yet, while leaders analyse their spreadsheets, define their aspirational strategies, and polish their presentations, it’s easy to forget that it’s the everyday, on-the-job interactions that create the performance culture. The key to mastering potentially difficult interactions and making them motivational is not evidence, preparation or professionalism, it’s authentic interpersonal communication. In this article, I will answer the following questions: Why is it so tricky? What can you do to set conversations up for success? How can you use feedback to coach change? What if everyone wanted feedback?

The psychological synthesis that underpins my diagnostics

Lon-term hopefulness in the face of short-term hopelessness

Over the past two decades of coaching and consulting, a recurring theme has been the effectiveness of conversations that involve feedback or relate to performance. I think that there are a couple of reasons that this never really leaves the development agenda: 1. Some things change: The way we lead organisations, what we ask people to pay attention to, ways of working, the nature of the job role, and the measures of success. What was considered a great contribution twenty years ago may not cut the mustard today. As what’s required changes, so does the way we discuss it. 2. Some things never change: The ability to lead effective conversations about performance is the most advanced of communication skills. It’s a difficult activity because we are bumping up against human nature. None of us really enjoy being measured, compared, evaluated or critiqued. Just one badly positioned word or statement could easily disrupt the conversation dynamic and provoke defensiveness or resistance. I have worked on this topic in a wide range of organisations, from SMEs to some of the UK’s biggest brands, so I thought it would be a good idea to share my experience in this blog: Do you need a process? Sometimes, the rigid process for feedback and appraisal can be limiting, but it would seem that there is a need for it. I remember working with a large bank that unfortunately blew up shortly after the financial crisis of 2008, (which was a shame because they were a great client and had a good culture). They discovered that the process they were using to facilitate conversations about performance was limiting the quality of the conversations; Following the prescriptive tick boxes was making interactions stilted, robotic and un-empathetic. They decided to abandon the process altogether and instead encouraged people leaders just to have honest and positive conversations more naturally. Brilliant idea in principle, but the reality was that people stopped having conversations. Without the prompt of a process and the inflexibility of deadlines, conversations don’t happen at all. The process may be robotic, but it serves as a ‘crutch’ to help people leaders approach and structure the conversation. Without it, approaching the conversation effectively is entirely dependent upon the communication skills of the people leader. Receptive Mindset Of all of the factors that affect our ability to take on board feedback, the one that has the most impact is the quality of our relationship with the person giving it. If we know somebody is on our side or has our back, it’s far easier to engage in the process without feeling defensive. For example, which would you rather receive, challenging feedback from someone that you trust has your best interests at heart or complimentary feedback from someone you distrust? For most of us, it is the level of trust and the ability to be open that allows us to drop the defences and fully engage. Defending yourself against feedback of any nature is a massive waste of time. It changes nothing and deprives you of the opportunity to learn and grow. If you successfully defend your limitations, the prize is that you get to keep them! An elite performer would not defend themselves against feedback from their coach. As a manager or leader of people, our ability to create authentic working relationships so that individuals are receptive to feedback is what makes growth and development possible. Question Expectations A self-fulfilling prophecy is a socio-psychological phenomenon of making a prediction that causes itself to become true due to positive reinforcement. We believe that something will happen, and our behaviour changes to fulfil the belief. If you give feedback to someone and you are thinking, “This will be difficult.” That expectation will be awkwardly visible in your behaviour. If you have negative expectations about the feedback you are receiving, you will not be able to properly hear what is being said. The route out of this drama is to frame conversations by beginning them by being extremely clear and overt about the positive intentions of the conversation. In doing so, you achieve three things: 1. Managing expectation In so many activities, we just begin and hope that we communicate clearly enough for people to work out where we are coming from and where we are going. Why leave it to chance? Clear framing in advance allows you to have a conversation about the conversation that will follow. It establishes relevancy, creates an opportunity to agree on how to proceed together, and can even be used to introduce the elephant in the room if needs be. 2. Priming attention Setting clear positive intentions for the conversation means that is what we will expect and look for evidence of. It creates a helpful confirmation bias or a positive self-fulfilling prophecy. We have much more chance of facilitating a conversation to growth and development outcomes if we have signposted that’s where we are going from the start. 3. Separating intention from the message Without taking the time to fame the intent of the conversation, the recipient of the feedback may ‘shoot the messenger’. To avoid this you must separate your role in the conversation from the explicit points covered within it. It must be clear that your intention in delivering and exploring the message is positive, even if the message itself is challenging. Feedback is Subjective One of the dangers of well-documented feedback processes is that we can fall into the trap of thinking that the feedback is factual. For the most part, feedback is a generalised conclusion. It tells us about people’s perceptions and the results of our actions. It doesn’t tell us about the complex priorities, circumstances and choices that add up to those results. To get the value out of feedback, we must dig a little deeper. If it’s an outcome, how did it happen? If it’s an output, what did you do? For feedback to be truly helpful, whether it’s positive or negative, we must explore the reality of what specifically contributed to the feedback. When faced with challenging feedback, the most unhelpful responses are to either take it on as an absolute truth or reject it completely. Both are overreactions that prevent you from properly exploring it. The most helpful way to attribute meaning to feedback that you receive is to consider it to be 50% true. By thinking of it as a partial truth, there is no need to defend yourself against it or take it onboard universally. Focus on the future All too often, performance conversations are an autopsy of the past in order to justify a number or to have something concrete to talk about. The consequence is that a great deal of the conversation is retrospective, leaving little time and attention for exploring the future. Reflecting on and learning from the past is an essential part of self-development, but for managing performance, it’s less important than what you will do next. The past has happened. Whatever lessons we learn from the past, we must put into the future to make a difference. If you don’t know exactly what you will do differently tomorrow, then the feedback is being used for justification, not for development. Behaviour is easy to change, but intention is stickier Most people think of behaviour change as something that’s quite tricky to achieve, but it’s really easy. It’s not behaviour that people hold on to, it’s how the behaviour serves them. Any given behaviour is driven by an intention, and that intention is really important to them. That’s why it’s almost impossible to stop a behaviour, but easy to replace it. In exploring how to behave differently, we must work with our intrinsic motivations. To do this, question the intent or motive that is driving the current behaviour, then explore different behaviours that will serve the intent/motive in a more healthy, harmonious or effective way. You cannot stop or change behaviour, but you can shift and replace it. Free Book In 2009, I co-authored a book called “Feedback or Criticism?” which provides a method for having brilliant conversations about performance. Please DM me for a complimentary copy.

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.