Post on 03-Jan-2016
description
Mark McGinnDirector
PeopleFit027 6288803
Workshop objectivesTo gain an overview of collaboration and
adversarialismUnderstand the various emotional states in
organisationsThe laws of dialogue and the impact of
emotional intelligenceDialogue, debate and defensiveness
Discussion
Think about positive and negative experiences of working with others with different work status (power through knowledge, hierarchy)
Then describe What worksWhat doesn’t work Focus on behaviours & feelings generated.
Differences in ApproachADVERSARIAL – DEBATEEmphasis on positions1. Members see themselves as
opponents2. Polarisation of members on
issues 3. Winning arguments are
sought4. Yields a forced compromise
or an impasse - team members often dissatisfied
5. Characterised by suspicion and high negative emotions
6. Authority for the decision rests with hierarchy
7. More superficial relationships – people talk at one another
8. Lower Emotional Intelligence9. Organisational response:
More suspicion, control & compliance
COLLABORATIVE – DIALOGUEEmphasis on interests1. Members see themselves as
colleagues with different views2. Joint search for underlying interests 3. Workable options are freely
discussed 4. Yields resolution of integrated
interests and satisfied team members
5. Characterised by respect, listening and the application of reason
6. Authority for the decision rests with a consensus committed to implementation
7. More authentic relationships – people talk with one another
8. Higher Emotional Intelligence 9. Organisational response: More trust
& empowerment
I’m OK”ish”
I’m not OK (bruised)
Givenupcaring
Care
Volunteers
•Available, discretionary effort for others
•Language of inclusion “us, we, our” etc
Survivors
•Follow rules, only the minimum, quit but still here
•Self-interested, will “play the game”
Whingers•Depend on willing ear: complaints, demands, criticism of others, insecure
•Language of exclusion “they, them, the system, the boss
Prisoners•The darkest place, low self worth, hates the organisation -stuck
•Stuff up the system, make them pay, self sabotage – high stress
Start here
VolunteersFeel OK and it’s real – degree of enthusiasmAvailable for robust & authentic conversation
– will front difficult issues“We” - language of inclusionEnough trust to risk trying new things –
discretionary effortQuadrant of commitmentSupported by leaders
WhingersDon’t feel OK – bruisedBecome dependent on support of othersFeelings of annoyance, insecurityGeneralise – “they”, language of separationLook and listen for evidence to prove their
pointEnough trust to whinge (express feelings) to
othersFrustrated idealists/pragmatists
SurvivorsPut things in place that shut out others to
make themselves feel OK “ish” (false OK)Fundamentally detachedMask their true feeling to othersLow/diminished trust of othersGame players – attend to things on the
surfacePathway of safety – no risks – no change
PrisonersBruised by others & selfDo things to sabotage others – even
themselves; Fundamentally “stuck”Mask their true feelingLow trust of othersTend to ill-health if sustained over long
period
DiscussionDoes the model make sense?
Why do people stay in a volunteer state?
Why do people stay volunteers?
Identity and inclusion in the relationship:(1) They maintain self awareness & self management - they know what they like and focus their effort on overcoming obstacles(2) They understand others have different needs and are willing to engage, optimistic about win/wins over the long-term(3) They receive validation and respond to
leadership
Why do people move away from volunteer mode?
Loss of identity and exclusion from relationships
1.They no longer feel known for who they are: “I feel like I’m a number” – “its all transactional,
2.They perceive threats to their purposes, circumstances and concerns,
3.They lose clarity about their value,4.They have difficulty “swimming against the
tide”.
Keeping people engagedEveryone , from those carrying out ‘menial’
tasks to the CEO, needs to feel they are part of something
That their knowledge and skill is valued because it contributes to others success
Value is everything from a smile and “hello”, to remuneration
Opportunities for meaningful dialogue – genuine exchange of ideas, shared understanding of difference.
Know the 3 laws of dialogue1. All humans have purposes, concerns &
circumstances (pcc).2. If someone perceives that you are
unaware or disrespectful of their pcc, they will consider you a threat, resulting in active efforts to avoid, resist or undermine such threats (negative energy/engagement).
3. If someone perceives that you are aware & respectful of their pcc, they will join you in conversation, share information, co-invent solutions and move into action. (positive energy/engagement).
Broaden the intersectionYour Purpose My Purpose
Our commitments (to action)
Emotional Intelligence (EQ) the foundation for dialogueRecognising our own emotions and what causes them.Managing those emotions constructively, to influence others emotions
It is not about who has the most general mental ability (IQ) “about being nice” “letting it all hang out”fixed genetically and only develops in childhood
EQ CompetenciesSelf awareness
(recognition)Understanding what
pushes your “hot buttons”
Recognising when they are being pushed
Willingness to take in information improving self awareness (feedback)
Self managementSelf control &
confidenceTransparency –
bring all informationAdapting to the
unexpected Persisting despite
obstacles Initiative – new
ideasOptimism
EQ CompetenciesSocial awarenessEmpathy for
another’s situationOrganisational
awareness – knowing more than just your job
Relationship management
Influence others’ thinking
Conflict management
Team work & collaboration – be open to being influenced!
Logic &reasoning
Relationshipmanagement
SocialAwareness e.g. empathy
Direction
of
effort
when
building
trust
and
exerting
influence
SelfManagement
SelfAwareness
Model for trust and influence using emotional intelligence
Most common mistake? Starting here!
80% to 90%of whatseparatesaveragefromexcellentperformers
A significant EQ behaviourListening
0 - Bio reaction – listening through a threat response
1 – Content – separating spoken words from meaning
2 – Compassion – listening for an emotional relationship to the words
3 - Essential purpose – listening to what’s at stake for the speaker (rare)
4 – Intersection – Listen for mutual value in face of differences (very rare)
The effect of listeningHigh listening - quality dialogue
Low listening – high debate or disengagement
Debate – dialogue behaviours
LISTENING
T IME
EFFORT AT ENGAGEMENT
Real collaboration
Checking reality
Deep listening – rungs 3 & 4
Testing assumptions
Patience – tolerance for difference
Avoidance
Detached observance
Explaining
Advocating
Politeness appeasement
Contradicting
Beginning to listen – rungs 1 & 2
Dialogue balances advocacy with inquiryInstead of:
I disagree – that’s wrong
That might be your view but this is how it really is
The only way this problem can be fixed is if you….
Try:What leads you to conclude
that?What data do you have for that?
Can you help me understand your thinking here
What is the significance of that
Are we starting from different sets of assumptions here
Discussion – In debate, we defend!
How do we encourage others to be defensive?
Defensiveness – “The elephant in the room”We stimulate flight/fight/freeze/appease responses in others
Examplesexpose others to threat or embarrassment,
Impose or demand without reciprocity, When we attack, blame or defend we find it difficult to stay in dialogue mode.
Blame, defense and learning
Blame Defensivenes
s
Reduction
in info.
Distorted reality
Poor problem
solving
Mor
e
proble
ms
Discussion pointHow can we break the cycle and
improve organisational learning?
Steps to avoid the blame game1. Remember that others are acting
rationally from their perspective2. Notice the larger forces at work that
probably have an impact on you and your colleague with a different view
3. Look at what you did that got the reaction
4. Remind yourself that judgment & criticism of others makes it very difficult for them to see clearly & respond appropriately
Some important engagement skills
Help make sense of what’s going on
Build productive relationshipsDevelop ability to be inventive/creative
Engaging in making sense of what’s going on We do this well when we:Involve others by saying what we think we are seeing, and checking this out (different perspectives from ours).
Get and share data from sources e.g. customers, other stakeholders.
Explore what the data means for alternative ways of working/processes
Building productive relationshipsWe do this well when we:Try to understand others
perspectives, listen with an open mind & without judgment.
Encourage others to voice their interpretations about what’s going on and why.
Try to anticipate others’ reactions with a focus on meeting their needs.
Be open about our reasoning – not just expressing a “bottom line”.
Develop the ability to be inventive/creative
We do this well when we:Avoid assuming that the way things have
always been done is the best way to do them.Encourage creative ways of getting tasks
done.Experiment with processes and organising
e.g. finding alternative methods for grouping or linking people.
Continually asking “what other options are possible”.
Steps in self-monitoringWhat important purpose is at stake for
them?What concerns do they have about
achieving their purpose What circumstances are having an
impact on their purposeWhat rung on the listening ladder am I
on?Where am I on the Dialogue/Debate
continuum?
Steps in self-monitoring1. Am I spilling milk or crying (pointing or
measuring the problem) or cleaning up (identifying steps for prevention and a better future state)?
2. How well am I showing a colleague with a different view that I understand them?
3. What could I do more of to engage in shared understanding of issues?
4. What could I do to be more collaborative?
An example of demonstrating understanding of a colleague “My perspective, informed by xyz, is that you
…… or”
“I accept I don’t necessarily have the whole picture but what I see is ….. And this has had …. impact on you.”
THEN
“What would you add or change (to what I’ve just said)?”
Concluding commentsIf you want to create anything new in a system, change the content and tenor of the conversation(s)
Engagement is an emotional issue before it’s a cognitive issue. There is no mind applied without the heart
We all need to feel heard