Personal Mastery for Transformational Leadership

WEBSITE: neilbakerconsulting.com Phone: 206-855-1140 EMAIL: [email protected]

Copyright Neil Baker M.D., 2017

NEIL BAKER CONSULTING AND COACHING LLC Neil J. Baker M.D.

Pag

e1

NYS DSRIP Learning Symposium Session A3

Articles and Tools

Personal Mastery for Transformational Leadership

February 7, 2018

To receive free monthly resources and links to tools for subscribers only, click on Subscribe.

Articles and Tools Page On Leadership Practice

A Key Barrier to Making Our Leadership Transformational 2

Self-Management

Are you leading from reactivity or creativity?—four steps to see your blind spots 4

Ladder of Inference 7

Dialogue

In-the-Moment Reminders for Dialogue (dialogue overview, checking understanding, active listening, active telling)

9

Active telling—the art of assuring people listen to you 13

On Being Unconditionally Constructive 15

Having trouble motivating others?—a quick diagnostic 17

Feedback and Accountability

Are flaws in decision-making processes causing conflict and poor alignment?—a quick diagnostic

19

Follow-Up/Align: develop and sustain high quality meetings

An Easily Missed Ingredient for High Team Performance 21

In-the-Moment Reminder for Team Norms 23

References 25

http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/

mailto:[email protected]

http://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001tS5kHfiQRiZZe4QXcxPxvab_7qCZvWhHxfTMDFQo5ixcgfAcKuPnRHoAIi2aJdAzlTBYxykmP9K7yP0JfoEX26EvsUUVRsPlJ4xP_zS_sdNOKKU_3LRQVoIqu7ZVRnX5h4dS9IKCdW1oEJiRBK7CYf9OdahyzPvBaHAUTGDtkHv4wgCEEkL3Cq7bpVQQypTa




Pag

e2

A Key Barrier to Making Our Leadership Transformational

An executive in a recent workshop I led pulled me aside to privately say: “I know I need to reflect on the way I am thinking, feeling, and acting to be a better leader but I don’t know how.”

I was taken aback by his honesty. This was clearly hard for him to reveal. He chose not to ask in front of the group. Reflection seems so straightforward. But is it?

What 420 leaders say about reflection… It turns out the executive who pulled me aside is not alone. Of 420 healthcare leaders I surveyed at talks on leadership, almost all indicated they face one or more barriers to reflection. Two of the most common, each checked by nearly half of the leaders, were “uncertainty about how to do it well” and “lack of time.” The majority of written comments were about struggles with prioritizing and taking the time for reflection. Some of this was attributed to being “caught up” in issues such as “lack of trust in the organization” or “lack of political capital to get anything done.” One leader attributed his difficulty reflecting to “weakness.” Another wrote that it is “hard to change habits.”

What brain science says about reflection… At the heart of things, creating a reflective practice is creating a new habit. We all know changing habits like diet and exercise is hard. But I think reflection is much harder. In reflecting, we work to shift from being “caught up” in our thoughts and feelings to looking at them to expand our understanding of situations and open to more creative and effective options. Brain science has indicated that experiential information we take in is coupled to automatic, habitual ways of explaining events. Our brains are hard-wired for us to leap to conclusions from limited data in nanoseconds. It takes work to “decouple” ourselves from such automatic processes. But, even brief reflection such as taking 15 minutes to write down lessons learned from experience can yield more objective understanding of events and better options. (1 – 2)

Hard-wired to avoid transformation Transformation involves getting to new perspectives. Because our brain hard-wiring can easily trap us into biased conclusions, we benefit from developing a regular practice of questioning our own thoughts. This is not easy for the ego. It is humbling. The tendency is to jump quickly to






Pag

e3

feeling “right” rather than leaving ourselves open to uncertainty. Think about how easy, common, and seductive it is to be sure other people are “the problem” rather than looking at our own contribution to problems.

Missing the true level of our accomplishments Another challenge is that our automatic responses can make it surprisingly easy to miss the true level of success we have had. Seeing our successes accurately is crucial to changing habits. For example, in the middle of a longer conversation, almost as an aside, a leader mentioned she had resolved a conflict with a team. I said “Wait! At the start of this conflict, what would you have estimated for the chances of achieving this level of success?” She replied “No more than a 20% chance.” Suddenly, this event became one worth reflecting on. How did she pull this off?

Three steps forward you can take right now I guarantee you have already had multiple experiences of “decoupling” yourself from automatic thinking. The challenge is to turn such experience into an intentional and systematic practice. There is no way around carving out time. But, you can start small. For example, carve out one half-hour a week to reflect on a past or current situation. Next, start trying out a consistent set of questions for guidance. Be willing to change them over time to find out what works for you. Here is a quick set to work from: What happened?; What were my thoughts, feelings, and actions?; What did I do that was helpful and unhelpful?; Where did I leap to conclusions?; How did I contribute to the problems?; What options might I consider?; What will I try next?; What do I hope to accomplish? Finally, be sure to keep the goals for actions small to build confidence. For that leader who resolved the team conflict, her first step was to simply listen to the team and explore their concerns. That was transformational for her instead of needing a solution in one meeting.

Consider engaging an extra set of neurons The journey of developing a reflective practice also benefits from episodes of coaching and consultation. In the wild complexity of organizational life, two brains can sometimes be better than one.

References

1. Di Stefano, Giada et al Learning by Thinking: How Reflection Aids Performance, Harvard Business School Working Paper 14-093, March 25, 2014

2. Siegel, Daniel J. Mindfulness training and neural integration: differentiation of distinct streams of awareness and the cultivation of well-being, SCAN 2, 2007






Pag

e4

Are you leading from reactivity or creativity? four steps to see your blind spots

In this article you will learn about a four-step practice for a major leadership challenge—seeing our own contribution to problems. I discovered this challenge in my first leadership position supervising a staff of doctors and nurses at a hospital. I was confident, having been

hired because of my skills developing teams. But, shortly after I started, the team began struggling with what I call “reactivity”—behaviors counterproductive for goals and collaboration. Examples included people getting stuck in arguments or withdrawing from communication in frustration. Also, conflict was provoked by people leaping to conclusions rather than checking things out with each other. The image on this page shows behaviors that are likely to be reactive along with behaviors more associated with creative and productive teamwork.

An unexpected cause of problems What I failed to see was my contribution to the problems by my frequently asserting strong views while quickly negating other opinions. Also, I would all too often leap to judgment and criticize the staff. When I finally realized the doctors and nurses were mainly angry and unhappy with me, I was shaken and worried about failing. Luckily, I discovered the work of the psychologist Albert Ellis.(1) He observed that all of us will, at times, become reactive and act in ways counter to our own goals and values. Neuroscience offers a helpful explanation for this normal but illogical behavior. Early in our evolution, brain centers developed which, for survival, make lightning fast assessments of the environment leading to flight or fight reactions. In modern times, even minor stress can activate these same pathways causing leaps to biased, faulty conclusions and emotions which drive reactive behaviors. This happens automatically and out of awareness. Since we can be blind to our reactivity, countering these tendencies requires conscious effort. We can’t rely on having previously mastered communication skills.

A four-step practice






Pag

e5

Based on research and experience, I have developed a four-step practice to check for our own reactivity before and after key interactions. Through this process, we get better at catching ourselves in reactivity in-the-moment. At the end of this article you will find a set of questions for guidance through the steps.

1. The first step is recognizing our personal signs of reactivity. While knowing common indicators of reactivity helps, it takes time to connect them to our personal experience. Remember, this is about learning to see our blind spots. In that first leadership position, I gradually learned I am at high risk for reactive behaviors when I feel very certain about an idea along with an urgency to convince others.

2. The second step helps counter such an urge to action by pausing to remind ourselves of our goals and the type of teamwork we want to create. This invites our best skills and creativity to emerge.

3. The third step is to move out of judgment by trying to understand others with empathy. 4. Finally, we prepare for conversations by suspending certainty about our views and being

curious about what others have to say even if we disagree.

Using such practices with my hospital team, I learned to pause when I felt my tell-tale certainty and urgency. Then, I would remind myself of my desire for participatory teamwork. Usually my first action, instead of asserting my ideas, would then be to invite discussion and listen. When I eventually did express my views, I found I was less intense and provoked much less reactivity in others. After three years, I was one of the highest rated leaders in the hospital and teamwork was greatly improved. This process may sound straightforward or even easy now. But it was hard work and I have not yet cured myself of my reactivity. No one can. But we are in good company--the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman said that after a lifetime studying psychology he is still prone to reactive thinking with overconfidence and biases.(2) Even so, steady practice diminishes the frequency, intensity, and duration of our reactive behaviors.

Tapping into our own and others’ best skills Accepting reactivity as normal allows a reinterpretation of team problems. What looks like lack of skills or personality issues is more likely a reaction to stress. Better skills are usually there to tap into. The key is finding the courage to first look at our own contribution to problems with compassion.

A Four-Step Practice—Guiding Questions

1. Recognize reactivity.

How am I/are others in reactivity? (Consider thoughts, feelings, behaviors.)

What are the triggers?

How have I and they leapt to assumptions, judgment, blame, or interpretations?



http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/key-articles/a-visual-way-to-slow-the-minds-hard-wired-reactivity




Pag

e6

Where am I holding on to certainty about my views?

How am I contributing to the problem(s)?

2. Clarify your intentions for results and relationships.

What are my business/quality vision and goals? For the situation. For my next conversation in this situation.

What kind of relationship(s) am I trying to build? For the situation. For my next conversation in this situation.

3. Get in their shoes.

Why would well-intentioned, reasonable people act this way?

4. Prepare for dialogue.

Am I ready to let go of certainty that there is one way of looking at things?

Am I ready to both state my perceptions AND be curious about and seek out what others have to say?

Have I reframed my goals and intentions in a way that can promote dialogue?

Have I reviewed how roles and power differences may impact dialogue and decision making?

Am I prepared to be unconditionally constructive? References

1. Ellis, Albert The Road to Tolerance Prometheus Books 2004 2. Kahneman, Daniel Thinking Fast and Slow Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2011



http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/key-articles/on-being-unconditionally-constructive




Pag

e7

Ladder of Inference

As humans, we are hard-wired to leap to assumptions in ways which create tension with others, especially under the pressure of stress and complex problems. This hard-wiring derives from ancient parts of the brain which evolved early on to generate automatic survival reactions--flight, fight, or freeze.

Difficulties in modern social situations can activate these pathways and drive us in nanoseconds, outside of our awareness, to

faulty interpretations not infrequently accompanied by strong emotions. This happens to everyone. We cannot stop our brains from this quick process. But, we can modify it. One way is through stopping, even for a few seconds, to observe the mind. The Ladder of Inference (1, 2) is a tool to make visual these rapid movements of the mind and help us pause for reflection before we take action. The bottom rung of the ladder represents all the observable data in a situation. Our hard-wiring leads to rapid selection of part of the data, then "up the ladder" to judgments or assumptions, and finally to conclusions and action at the highest rung. Such actions are at risk for being unproductive or counterproductive for work relationships and problem solving. The Ladder can be divided into as many as 7 or more steps to represent schematically the brain's information processing. There is not one right number of steps. I use four because that is all I can remember in the midst of conflict which is when I use the tool to mentally orient myself. In the example shown above, my brain causes me to get very negative about a colleague, Chris.

At the bottom rung is all observable data I could consider from my working relationship with Chris or even just for this one day.

At the next higher rung, the brain selects data out of this pool. This day, Chris is late to a meeting and does not apologize. Because this has happened before and/or because I am particularly sensitive that day, my brain immediately focuses on that one piece of data.

From selected data, the brain moves to judgments, assumptions, and opinions--i.e. making meaning out of the selected data. In this case, I assume Chris is totally disengaged and not committed to the team.

At the highest point of the ladder are conclusions and actions. I am gripped by my interpretations to the point that I don't think I can work with Chris. Or, I might withdraw






Pag

e8

from him, disrupting the flow of work between us. Or I might publicly attack him for his "bad attitude" (an interpretation which has not been checked out).

If we keep the ladder in mind in the midst of conversations, we can step back to observe our own thinking. We can shift to asking ourselves questions which move our thinking back to data and experience opening us to more choices for communication and action. We can ask:

What am I thinking? What interpretations and judgments have I made? On what data am I basing these conclusions? What is my reasoning? What other data am I not considering? What else could be going on? What other interpretations are possible here?

I can then use these same questions with others if I sense they have moved up the ladder. Research from Gervase Bushe (3) suggests that about 80% of conflicts at work occur because people have not checked out their experiences with each other--i.e. moving down the ladder with each other to share observed data and experience. When such sharing does occur, the conflict often either goes away or the issues are entirely different from what was expected. Though simple in concept, asking questions and sharing experience in this way can be demanding because we may be gripped by strong emotion or the stakes may feel high or we might have a strong need to be "right" at that moment. Then it can be hard to own our contribution to the tension. Slowing down to reflect can require a good deal of self-regulation of emotion and thought. The Ladder of Inference reminds us to treat our strongest conclusions as just theories to be tested. Our first conclusions are all too likely to put us at risk for becoming part of the problem. References

1. Attributed to Chris Argyris and Donald Schon. See a brief history of the development of the Ladder of Inference in Smith, Diana Mclain The Elephant in the Room 2011, pgs. 275 - 276

2. Thanks to the American Academy on Communication in Healthcare for the Ladder of Inference image.

3. Bushe, Gervase Clear Leadership, Davies-Black, Nicholas Brealey Publishing 2010






Pag

e9

In-the-Moment Reminder for Dialogue

Adapted and synthesized from: Fisher, Roger et al Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In 2011; Isaacs Dialogue: the art of thinking together 1999; Patterson et al Crucial Conversations 2002; Stone et al Difficult Conversations 1999; Yankelovich The Magic of Dialogue: transforming conflict into cooperation 1999

Definition A conversation designed to set aside coming to decisions, answers, or final solutions in order to:

discover what is important to each participant; find mutual definitions of problems, mutual goals, creative solutions, and shared

commitment for action; maintain feedback about what is working and not working in teamwork and

communication.

Key methods

Use cycles of active listening, active telling, and checking understanding. Explore complex issues by getting many points of view on the table. Assure wide, balanced participation.

• View and explore disagreements together, not debate them (agree to disagree).

• Mutually explore the data and observations which are the basis for viewpoints.

• Suspend certainty about right vs. wrong.

• Sustain a perspective of mutual contribution to problems as opposed to blame.

Patterns which can undermine dialogue • Sequential telling (e.g. idea after idea) without checking for understanding. • Silence among some participants. • Arguing for or against, right or wrong--defending views instead of mutually exploring. • Jumping to decisions early without sufficient time for exchange of views. • Excluding certain positions from discussion. • Those with authority dominating the conversation and not soliciting differing opinions. • Those without authority falling into silence or aggressively pushing viewpoints.

Active

telling

Check understanding

Active listening

Check understanding






Pag

e10

In-the-Moment Reminder for Checking Understanding Note: Understanding the Ladder of Inference is recommended.

See the brief article: The Ladder of Inference.

To check understanding, use powerful questions.

Definitions of powerful questions and examples

A selection of powerful questions for multiple different situations can be found at Questions that drive change.

Criteria for powerful questions from John Whitmore Coaching for Performance 2009: o Powerful questions…

…elicit a higher order awareness than usual. ...are descriptive vs. judgmental. ...are open vs. closed. ...use what, where, when, how often, how many, who as opposed to why.

Criteria from Marilee Adams Change Your Questions, Change your Life 2009: o Powerful questions come from a learner stance and facilitate learning.

What are the facts? What outcomes do I want? What is possible? What responsibilities do I and others have? Am I coming from a judger place?

o Questions that come from a judger stance impede learning. How can I prove I am right? Who is at fault? What’s wrong? What’s wrong with me? What’s wrong with them?

Powerful questions to check understanding with active telling

Can you tell me what you heard me say?

What am I missing? Where could I be wrong?

Does my reasoning make sense?

What different or opposing views do you have?

Powerful questions to check understanding with active listening Here is what I heard you say. Did I get that right?

What observations and assumptions are you basing that on?

What data supports this point of view?

What data may conflict with this point of view?



http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/brief-articles/a-visual-way-to-slow-the-minds-hard-wired-reactivity

http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/resources/tool-questions-that-drive-change




Pag

e11

In-the-Moment Reminder for Active Listening Definition of active listening Listening that focuses attention on the speaker and assures that the speaker feels understood.

Key methods • Be like a journalist: ask who, what, where, how, when, how often (avoid "why"). • Repeat back, reflect back, teach back, paraphrase, summarize. Ask "Did I get that right?" • Ask about feelings. Empathize. • Provide appreciation for the way they have met challenges. • Offer positive regard and respect. • Validate and legitimize concerns and feelings (e.g. “Anyone would feel that way in this

circumstance.”). • Help the speaker to put his/her best case forward even if you disagree. • Ask questions to explore the data and observations on which conclusions are based.

Key barriers and traps • Quickly offering one’s own opinions, feelings, agenda, experiences. • Judging or assuming bad or negative intentions without checking them out. • Avoiding sensitive topics. • Jumping to solutions.

Listener thoughts which impact active listening Adapted from: Schein, Edgar Helping Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc. 2011; Whitworth, Laura, Kimsey-House, Henry, Sardahl, Phil Co-active Coaching Jaico Publishing House, 1999

Listener thoughts which can interfere with active listening

adapted from Whitworth et al

Listener thoughts which facilitate active listening

adapted from Whitworth et al and Schein

What am I concerned about? What are my goals? What is my agenda? What do I think the person should do? What would I do in this situation? What advice should I give? What do I feel? What effect is the speaker having on me?

What is the speaker concerned about? What are the speaker's goals and agenda? What does the speaker think he/she should do? What options is the speaker thinking about? Is the speaker ready to act? In what ways? What does the speaker feel? What effect am I having on the speaker?






Pag

e12

In-the-Moment Reminder for Active Telling Adapted from Isaacs Dialogue: the art of thinking together 1999; Miller et al Motivational Interviewing 2000; Patterson et al Crucial Conversations 2002; Stone et al Difficult Conversations 1999.

Definition Telling that assures the speaker is understood and minimizes defensiveness and/or withdrawal.

Key methods (For more details, see Active Telling: the art of assuring people listen to you.) • Use the cycle of Ask-Tell-Ask.

– Ask permission to give your point of view. – Tell using "I" statements (i.e. "This is the way I am seeing things." as opposed to

"This is the way things are." Avoid presenting ideas as the one truth.) – Ask listeners to repeat/teach back to check understanding and for reactions and

concerns. • Additional tips:

– Share the basis of your perceptions: specific words, behaviors, and data. – Ask for questions to assure listeners understand the rationale for your ideas. – Elicit and acknowledge negative feelings about your views. – Seek differing and opposing views.

Key barriers and traps • Exaggerating by using strong terms such as "always" or "never." • Abandoning or revising positions to placate or win over others. • Rigidly holding onto positions and not incorporating accurate and important feedback. • Assuming negative or bad intentions of others instead of asking about them. • Trying to control the discussion, persuade, or win an argument.

Thoughts which impact active telling

Thoughts which can interfere Thoughts which can facilitate

I have to get them to decide. This is easy to understand. I do not need to check understanding. They should just get this. This is the way things are. I am right. If people express negative feelings about my ideas, I will lose. No one has anything to teach me. I have to minimize weaknesses and flaws in my position if I am to win the argument.

They have to choose. I help put all the data and reasoning on the table. What seems easy to understand can be easily misunderstood. I need to check understanding. This is the way I am seeing things. Each person can only know a piece of the reality in a complex system. People are more likely to pull together if they are able to express negative feelings. Everyone in the room has an important perspective from which I can learn. I must ask others for strengths and limitations of my position if we are to get the best solution.



http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/key-articles/active-telling-the-art-of-assuring-people-listen-to-you




Pag

e13

Active Telling: the art of assuring people listen to you

The worst mistakes I made over 24 years as an organizational leader were how I told things to people. I know excellent leadership depends on great listening—I was a natural with that. Each moment of listening is a step forward in building commitment. But, early in my career, my way of telling too often led

to pushback or withdrawal into silence—it was like three steps backwards with commitment.

A recipe for people not really listening At that time, my strong need for success led to a need to convince people of my ideas. So, I worked hard to present ideas in a powerful and inspirational way, minimizing weaknesses and flaws. I was well-prepared to quickly counter any perceived limitations or risks. The trouble was that people almost always had concerns—few organizational actions are risk-free. Too often, my quick retorts made them feel not listened to. This would provoke debate we could not resolve well or silent discontent which slowed or blocked the actions I wanted.

A paradox of skillful telling As I sought research and advice about telling, I discovered that even the most inspirational speech is lucky if it gets even 20% of people on board! (1) The large majority of people have to talk their way toward commitment in multiple conversations. Paradoxically, people are more likely to pull together around an idea if they are able to freely express and explore concerns. Also, people need to be able to talk things over to figure out how an idea connects to what is important to them. I even had to face the humbling reality that my best ideas had holes and flaws. In complex systems, no one person has the full picture and everyone has a perspective to learn from. It was very hard, but I gradually learned to link success with actually seeking out negative reactions.

A method for skillful telling To tell effectively I first prepare myself by remembering “My best ideas are just theories to be tested and improved upon.” Then I proceed with a cycle of Ask-Tell-Ask (2):

• Ask: In a way appropriate to the situation, I ask permission to give my point of view. This is surprisingly powerful in facilitating openness and I have never had anyone refuse.

• Tell: I am careful to use "I" statements (i.e. "This is the way I am seeing things." as opposed to "This is the way things are.")--another very simple but powerful method to convey there is not One Truth and that I will be interested in any reactions.






Pag

e14

• Ask: I ask people what they heard me say through some form of summarizing or repeating back. Because this can feel awkward, I may explain how easy it is for us all to misinterpret each other. Also, I ask for reactions and summarize what I heard.

Several cycles of Ask-Tell-Ask get a lot out on the table. People are more likely to feel taken seriously. Concerns can get then converted into issues for problem solving and action.

Risks and traps in active telling I call this approach active telling because, like active listening, it is two-way—the goal is to assure mutual understanding and exploration of ideas even if there is disagreement. I have experienced first-hand several risks and traps. Watch out for the inevitable lure back into convincing others. Also, I have learned to be careful that helping others feel heard does not lead to premature abandonment or revision of my ideas. The reverse can happen--dealing with negativity can easily pull us all, at times, into getting more rigid and discounting feedback. Human affairs are never perfect. There is no guarantee these methods mean people will really listen to you. But, the chances for getting to true commitment are much higher. References (1) Baker, Neil The Impact of a Visionary Speech. (2) Adapted from multiple sources including Miller, William R., Rollnick, Stephen Motivational

Interviewing The Guilford Press 2012. See the tool on active telling for full list of references.



http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/resources/the-impact-of-a-visionary-speech




Pag

e15

On Being Unconditionally Constructive

(Based on work from The Harvard Negotiation Project, especially the book by Roger Fisher and Scott Brown: Getting Together: Building Relationships as we Negotiate Penguin Books 1988) Difficult interactions and conflict occur frequently in organizational life. One common trap in such situations is to assume that if we act rationally, fairly, without blame, and

with calm emotions, then others will or should automatically follow our lead with their behavior. But, the stress of interpersonal difficulties causes everyone, at times, to fall into unproductive relational patterns. This can happen even when people have the best of intentions and skills. Starting with expectations that everyone will always act according to their best values puts us at substantial risk for disappointment or anger and then falling into our own problematic communication and behavior. Even when we are able to achieve working together in a productive way, the chances are this capacity will fluctuate depending on the stress level. It is better to assume that, under stress, reciprocal good will and behavior usually require ongoing hard work if they do occur at all. Being unconditionally constructive is a powerful but highly demanding way to stay in a leadership role in tough interactions. It means always acting in ways that raise the chances of improving the ability to work together no matter what others do. This practice does not guarantee agreement or shared values. It means that we try to find constructive ways to manage differences even if others are not. This practice is also not about how to be ‘good.’ It is about how to be effective. (Fisher and Brown). There is not much chance for a very good outcome if all the participants in an interaction choose to fall victim to a contagion of counterproductive behavior. Key practices of being unconditionally constructive include:

Always look beyond the taking of fixed positions to find common interests. Always consider consulting with others before making any decisions. Always listen actively to others. Make sure they know you understand their views even

if you disagree and even if they are critical of you.






Pag

e16

Always try to understand the observations and data on which others’ conclusions are based.

Always sustain respect and accept others as worthy of consideration. Stay engaged. Always check your own stories and assumptions against observable facts and data. Always avoid attributing bad intentions to others even if their impact on you is negative. Always avoid blaming, judging, labeling, and expressing intense emotion.

Being unconditionally constructive does not mean abandoning what we care most about or giving in to placate or to be nice. In fact, a very important practice is to sustain clarity about our own goals, values, needs and concerns and also to communicate them clearly. Being too quick to abandon or revise our best interests in reaction to the other party’s unconstructive behavior without careful reflection ends up being harmful to the partnership in the long run due to regret, frustration, or feelings of being coerced. All difficult interactions present us with a choice. We can choose leadership through being unconditionally constructive and raise the chances for success as well as improving relationships. Or, we can abandon the leadership position and raise the chances of acting in destructive ways, making relationships more dysfunctional, and failing.






Pag

e17

Having trouble motivating others?—a quick diagnostic

First reflect: (1) Check your theory of motivation. "Having trouble motivating others?" is a trick question. You can't motivate others--at least if you want intrinsic motivation (defined as when people are fully willing and embrace a change out of interest and commitment). Adults make their own choices. Trying to coax or arm-twist is likely to cause them to withdraw or just comply which leads to poor outcomes in complex

tasks. Intrinsic motivation arises through partnership and collaboration. People have to "talk their way" toward taking on a change. The leader's task is to create the environment for collaborative relationships which can support robust conversations about change. (2) Check your state of reactivity. If you are impatient or frustrated, you are likely to be in a reactive state and at risk for coaxing and arm-twisting. Find a way to get curious about others--use the five factors listed below to guide your questions. Find your way to trusting and respecting different decision-making processes. (3) Check the context and state of relationships. For example, if you have previously fallen into pressuring others to change, it will take time to build trust as you shift to a collaborative approach. What other factors in the environment are influencing consideration of a particular change? After reflection: (4) Ask others questions to explore five factors for engagement with intrinsic motivation. Understanding:

What is your understanding of the change?

How would you describe it to someone else? Importance:

• What is most important/meaningful for you at work? What makes you most enthusiastic about your work? (Ask "why" five times.)

• How could the change we are working on benefit what is most important to you? • What is at risk for you if it does not go well? What are your concerns?

Choice:

Is there a specific action which would be a good place for you to start?

How do you want to participate in design and implementation?






Pag

e18

Confidence:

How confident are you that we can mitigate the risks of this change for you? How could we do that? What might you do? How confident are you that you can be successful? What are barriers? Is there a barrier that is most important to work on right now? What action might you test right now? What actions might help from me? What help and support do you need (e.g. coaching, consultation, training)?

Ongoing support:

How will we know if things are going well or not? When will we meet next to check how things have gone?

When considering a change, motivation does not usually happen overnight. Even with the most charismatic, inspirational speech, you are lucky if you inspire no more than about 20% of people to action. Most people need ongoing conversations, individual consideration, and collaboration to take new directions.






Pag

e19

Are flaws in decision-making processes causing conflict and poor alignment?—a quick diagnostic

Barriers to progress like lack of alignment or conflict that are difficult to resolve are fairly common. One seemingly quite logical interpretation is that the primary cause of such barriers is the way people are communicating. But, problematic communication could be secondary to--a result of--flaws in decision-making processes. Such flaws may not be recognized as an important source of relational

problems. When people then dive into discussions, they are at risk for having unexpressed concerns, differing views, and assumptions about how decisions will be made. As a result, it is more difficult to sustain dialogue—a process of eliciting and assuring mutual understanding of differing ideas, opinions, and perceptions. Instead, due to the prevailing uncertainties, people are more likely to fall into debates, arm-twisting, coaxing, and pressuring which disrupt efforts to achieve alignment. Identifying flaws in decision making and doing something about them can help significantly to shift a murky, entangled debate into a clear, effective process of dialogue. Common decision-making errors include lack of clarity about: who has the authority to make the call; the type of decision being used; whether there will be input before and after decisions are made in order to address concerns; or if those impacted will be involved in the design of the implementation plan. A quick diagnostic for flaws in decision making process (to support high quality dialogue):

In this situation, is it clear who (person or group) has the authority to make the decision?

Has that person or group identified the type of decision making to be used? (see brief descriptions below)

Is there a clear timeline for the decision? Do people who are impacted and those who can contribute expertise have

opportunities to give input? Have they been involved in creating a mutual definition of the problem?

Has there been high quality dialogue prior to the decision with consideration of different options and the benefits and risks of each?






Pag

e20

Will there be opportunity to express reactions and address concerns about a decision after it is made?

Will people be involved in designing the implementation plan for the decision? Will the person or group who made the decision engage in regular review of the quality,

clarity, and effectiveness of decision-making processes?

Types of decision making: (1) The following two decision types mesh best with the objective of promoting high quality dialogue.

In consultative decisions, a leader with the authority to do so makes the call after obtaining input through dialogue from those who will be impacted and those who have key knowledge and expertise.

In consensus, a group of people make the call together. Consensus does not mean that the decision is everyone’s first choice but that everyone can live with the decision and commit fully to its success.

Additional decision types:

In authoritative decision making, a leader with authority makes the decision without input. Dialogue about the decision after it is made is crucial to promote alignment and participation in implementation.

Majority vote decision making, except where required in by-laws, is not generally recommended except in decisions of low importance (e.g. “Will we have lunch during the meeting?”)

Maintaining high quality dialogue while also maintaining clarity and quality of decision making processes is an important and nuanced balancing act. It takes art, skill, and ongoing, deliberate practice by individual leaders and by teams. Reference (1) Special thanks to Robert Crosby. See his book Walking the Empowerment Tightrope 1992.






Pag

e21

An Easily Missed Ingredient for High Team Performance.

One of the worst teams I’ve been part of was comprised of experts on facilitating teams. Our meetings were chaotic and unproductive as some experts got into intense debates without really listening to each other while some fell into silence. I am embarrassed to say I participated in the mess. When we finally stopped to actually apply our

team expertise to ourselves, we transformed and had great results. We did not eliminate all problems but we managed them much better.

What helped most in turning this team of experts around? It became clear to us that we had overlooked defining and using team norms. Norms are ground rules or guidelines for how members communicate and behave with each other—like really listening to each other, exploring ideas instead of debating them, giving feedback without blame, assuring everyone’s involvement, and being clear about how decisions will be made. Even if, like my experts, team members bring a lot of prior experience with norms, every team has to create them yet again. Norms gain their power through development in conversation.

Why are team guidelines about communication and behavior so important? Team which do not define and use norms are at higher risk for falling into mediocre performance or failure. In a study of 120 senior leadership teams, only 21% were high performing and the factor most strongly associated with high performance was clarity and use of team norms—not brilliance in things like strategy, quality, or efficiency.(1) Defining and using norms leads to better communication, problem solving, and conflict resolution all of which lead to both better results and higher quality work relationships. The latter enhances sustainability and team resilience.

Why is it so easy to overlook establishing adequate team norms?

Norms seem so basic and simple. For my team of experts, needing to create and apply norms felt like being demoted from grad school to grade school. But, impressive credentials don’t protect anyone from the way our brains are hard-wired. At times, in anyone, stress activates ancient brain pathways for survival—for flight or flight. Socially, such activation may lead to strong emotions and fixed opinions or withdrawal into silence. Norms remind us we are human and we all make mistakes.

Teams with problems can appear to be doing just fine.






Pag

e22

Not all teams are like my team of experts in which lack of sufficient norms led to “noisy” signs like difficult conflict. It is not uncommon to see teams claim in meetings that they are getting along just fine. But, there are hallway conversations outside of meetings with complaining about problems that never get adequately addressed or about people some members feel are not behaving well. Yet these concerns are not raised in meetings. This is exactly what guidelines for communication and behavior should be designed to address.

Developing and using team norms is like learning a new language. People have less confidence and experience talking about communication and behavior compared to technical issues like strategy or quality. Developing and using norms takes practice and trial and error as a team. In particular, it takes time and practice to define norms with enough behavioral specificity so that people can check to see if they are being followed. For example, compare “We need to feel safe.” to “When someone offers an idea we will always check understanding to make sure they feel heard.” Or, “When we give feedback we will avoid negative labels and be specific about the situation and behaviors we have observed. We will own observations as perceptions and not The Truth and check out each other’s perceptions.”

Ongoing feedback is required for making progress and it is uncomfortable. Some teams, like my team of experts, turn around very quickly once they define and use norms. More often it takes ongoing feedback to steadily improve alignment of communication and behavior with those norms. Naturally, this raises concerns about embarrassment--feedback is uncomfortable. But it gets less so with steady and frequent practice. Feedback is facilitated by making explicitly clear that it is not about “bad behavior.” Getting off track from norms can happen to anyone at any time no matter how long a team has worked together. Feedback is about helping people be at their best. Leaders help greatly by modeling feedback including inviting it about themselves.

Changing habits of behavior is hard. Team norms are not useful unless they are used. And that requires changing habits which is usually hard no matter how simple the new behaviors seem to be. For example, in my team of experts, we had to work hard to assure time at the end of meetings to ask: “What is working and not working in our communication based on our norms?” Also, we had to work to remember to check in during meetings to ask about specific norms--e.g. “Do you feel heard?”

Transform team problems into learning and creativity. Strong evidence links quality of team experience to better results, resilience, and sustainability. Norms are the rudder to maintain the desired team experience. I am humbled by how easy it is, even for experts, to neglect norms. By remembering this aspect of our humanness, I am better at helping myself and others transform team problems into learning and creativity.






Pag

e23

In-the-Moment Reminder for Team Norms

The most effective team norms are not copied from someone else’s list but are developed by each team using its preferred language and prioritization of what is most important. So, this “reminder” is not meant to be taken to use as is. Instead, it is intended to offer guidance to facilitate getting started on your own list of norms. It is derived from the components of high quality dialogue. You can read a brief review about dialogue in the article Don't wait. Apply practices for dialogue in every conversation. More extensive information and references about dialogue can be found in the resource In-the-Moment Reminders for Dialogue available only for those who subscribe for free monthly resources—click on Subscribe. Three additional articles also provide useful background about norms: Five Barriers to Feedback and High Capacity for Transformation; Teamwork as perpetual feedback; and Vulnerability, results, and leadership. If you have questions, please contact me at [email protected].

Selected components of high quality dialogue Examples of norms based on components of high quality dialogue

Explicitly keep separate the times for dialogue and for decision making.

Make explicit the intentions of dialogue.

Elicit different viewpoints and explore them. Avoid debates.

Suspend certainty that there is one right perspective or solution.

Explore the underlying data and observations on which views are based.

Assure wide, balanced participation. Avoid judgments and blame. Assume

mutual contributions to problems. Use cycles of active listening, active

telling, and checking understanding.*

*Explained in the resource In-the-Moment Reminders for Dialogue.

Our ideal is to develop mutual understanding of what is important to each of us, mutual definition of problems, and mutual commitment to solutions.

We will assure that everyone feels listened to and understood even when there is disagreement.

We will explicitly check understanding to assure people feel heard.

We will seek out differences in viewpoints to come to the best, most creative solutions.

We will explore the underlying data and observations on which opinions or ideas are based.

(see next page)



http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/brief-articles/dont-wait-apply-practices-for-dialogue-in-every-conversation

http://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001tS5kHfiQRiZZe4QXcxPxvab_7qCZvWhHxfTMDFQo5ixcgfAcKuPnRHoAIi2aJdAzlTBYxykmP9K7yP0JfoEX26EvsUUVRsPlJ4xP_zS_sdNOKKU_3LRQVoIqu7ZVRnX5h4dS9IKCdW1oEJiRBK7CYf9OdahyzPvBaHAUTGDtkHv4wgCEEkL3Cq7bpVQQypTa

http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/key-articles/five-barriers-to-feedback-and-high-capacity-for-transformation

http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/key-articles/five-barriers-to-feedback-and-high-capacity-for-transformation

http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/brief-articles/teamwork-as-perpetual-feedback

http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/brief-articles/vulnerability-results-and-leadership

http://www.neilbakerconsulting.com/brief-articles/vulnerability-results-and-leadership





Pag

e24

Selected components of high quality dialogue Examples of norms based on components of high quality dialogue

When there is conflict, we will assure each point of view is heard and explored rather than get into debates.

We will suspend certainty about our own ideas and opinions. There is no one truth.

When we give our ideas or feedback we will use “I” statements and own our statements as our perceptions and not The Truth. We will seek other viewpoints.

We will not judge or blame. We will assume mutual contributions to problems.

Feedback will be given through referring to specific words, situations, and behaviors rather than using global terms (e.g. “You were late 15 minutes today.” as opposed to “You are unmotivated and disorganized.”)

At the end of meetings we will check in to see what worked well and what did not well about our interactions.

We will be explicit about when and how a decision will be made.






Pag

e25

References

My current top eleven books to support transformational leadership Buckingham, Marcus, Coffman, Curt First Break All the Rules: What the World's

Greatest Managers Do Differently Simon and Schuster, 1999

Connor, Daryl R. Managing at the Speed of Change Villard Books, 1999

Deci, Edward L. Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation Penguin Books, 1995

Fisher, Roger, Ury, William Getting to Yes Penguin Books 2011

Heifetz, Ronald, Grashow, Alexander, Linsky, Marty The Practice of Adaptive Leadership Harvard Business Press, 2010

Kegan, Robert, Lahey, Lisa An Everyone Culture: becoming a deliberately developmental organization Harvard Business School Publishing, 2016

Kouzes, James M., Posner, Barry Z. The Leadership Challenge John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2007

Lencioni, Patrick The Advantage Jossey-Bass, 2012

Oakley, Ed, Krug, Doug Enlightened Leadership: Getting to the Heart of Change Key to Renewal, Inc. 1991

Scholtes, Peter The Team Handbook Joiner Associates Consulting Group, 1989

Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline Currency Doubleday, 2006

Reactivity 1. Anderson, Robert J., Adams, William A., Mastering Leadership Wiley, 2016 2. Argyris, Chris Organizational Traps Oxford University Press, 2010 3. Argyris, Chris Teaching Smart People How to Learn Harvard Business Review Press 2008 4. Bushe, Gervase Clear Leadership: sustaining real partnership and collaboration at work

Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2009 5. Ellis, Albert The Road to Tolerance, Prometheus Books 2004 6. Emerald, David The Power of TED (The Empowerment Dynamic) Polaris Publishing,

2009 7. Goleman, Daniel et al Primal Leadership: unleashing the power of emotional

intelligence Harvard Business Review Press 2013 8. Kahneman, Daniel Thinking Fast and Slow Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2011 9. Kegan, Robert, Lahey, Lisa Immunity to Change Harvard Business Press, 2009 10. Lieberman, Matthew D. Social: why our brains are wired to connect, Crown Publishers

2013 11. Oakley, Ed, Krug, Doug Enlightened Leadership: Getting to the Heart of Change Key to

Renewal, Inc. 1991 12. Rock, David Your Brain at Work, HarperCollins Publishers 2009 13. Wilson, Timothy D. Strangers to Ourselves Harvard University Press 2002






Pag

e26

Leadership 1. Bushe, Gervase Clear Leadership: sustaining real partnership and collaboration at

work Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2009 2. Connor, Daryl R. Managing at the Speed of Change Villard Books, 1992 3. Goleman, Daniel Leadership That Gets Results Harvard Business Review, March-April

2000 4. Heifetz, Ronald, Grashow, Alexander, Linsky, Marty The Practice of Adaptive

Leadership Harvard Business Press, 2010 5. Bass, Bernard M. Riggio, Ronald E. Transformational Leadership Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates Inc., 2006 6. Kotter, John P. Leading Change Harvard Business School Press, 1996 7. Kouzes, James M., Posner, Barry Z. The Leadership Challenge John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

2007 8. Maurer, Rick Beyond the Wall of Resistance Bard Press, 2010 9. Nolan, T.W. Execution of Strategic Improvement Initiatives to Produce Systems-Level

Results IHI Innovation Series white paper, Cambridge, MA., Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2007 (available at www.IHI.org)

10. Oakley, Ed and Krug, Doug Enlightened Leadership: Getting to the Heart of Change Key to Renewal, Inc. 1991

11. Reinertsen, J.L., Bisognano M., Pugh, M.D. Seven Leadership Leverage Points for Organization-Level improvement in Health Care (Second Edition) IHI Innovation Series white paper, Cambridge, MA., Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2008 (available at www.IHI.org)

12. Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline Currency Doubleday, 2006

Leadership and adult development 1. Anderson, Robert J., Adams, William A., Mastering Leadership Wiley, 2016 2. Garvey Berger, Jennifer Changing on the Job Stanford University Press, 2012 3. Joiner, Bill and Josephs, Stephen Leadership Agility Jossey-Bass, 2007 4. Kegan, Robert, Lahey, Lisa An Everyone Culture: becoming a deliberately

developmental organization Harvard Business School Publishing, 2016 5. Kegan, Robert, Lahey, Lisa Immunity to Change Harvard Business Press, 2009 6. Bill Torbert and Associates Action Inquiry Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2004

Engagement and motivation

1. Buckingham, Marcus, Coffman, Curt First Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently Simon and Schuster, 1999

2. Deci, Edward L. Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation Penguin Books, 1995

3. Emerald, David The Power of TED (The Empowerment Dynamic) Polaris Publishing, 2009

4. Kegan, Robert, Lahey, Lisa Immunity to Change Harvard Business Press, 2009



http://www.ihi.org/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.ihi.org/Pages/default.aspx




Pag

e27

5. Miller, William R., Rollnick, Stephen Motivational Interviewing, The Guildford Press 2000

6. Pink, Daniel Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us Riverhead Books, 2009

7. Thomas, Kenneth Intrinsic Motivation at Work Berrett Koehler Publishers Inc., 2009

Issues of power, positional authority, and decision making

1. Cohen, Allan R., Bradford, David L. Influencing Up 2012 2. Crosby, Robert P. Solving the Cross-Work Puzzle VIVO! Publishing, 2010 3. Crosby, Robert. P. Cultural Change in Organizations: A Guide to Leadership and

Bottom-Line Results VIVO! Publishing, 2011 4. Tannenbaum, Robert, Schmidt, Warren H. How to choose a leadership pattern Harvard

Business Review, May 1973

Communication and team building

1. Adams, Marilee Change Your Questions, Change Your Life: 10 Powerful Tools for Life and Work Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., 2009

2. Bens, Ingrid Facilitating With Ease! Jossey-Bass, 2012 3. Doyle, Michael, Straus, David How to Make Meetings Work! Berkley Books, 1976 4. Isaacs, William Dialogue: the art of thinking together Currency 1999 5. Kaner, Sam Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision Making John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

2007 6. Lencioni, Patrick Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team Jossey-Bass, 2002 7. Patterson, Kerry, Grenny Joseph, McMillan, Ron, Switzler, Al Crucial Conversations

Graw-Hill, 2002 8. Schein, Edgar Helping Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., 2011 9. Scholtes, Peter The Team Handbook Joiner Associates Consulting Group, 1989 10. Stone, Douglas, Patton, Bruce, Heen, Sheila Difficult Conversations Penguin Books, 1999 11. Whitworth L, Kimsey-House H, Sandahl P. Co-Active Coaching: New Skills for Coaching

People Toward Success in Work and Life JAICO Publishing House, 1999 12. Yankelovich, Daniel The Magic of Dialogue: transforming conflict into cooperation

Simon and Schuster 1999

About Neil Baker M.D.

Neil Baker M.D. works with healthcare organizations to enhance leadership and team impact through In-the-Moment Leadership Strategies. This means using any work situation, even the most complex and difficult, as an opportunity to achieve immediate impact on quality of work relationships and on progress toward results.






Pag

e28

He has developed these approaches as a leader, speaker, consultant, and executive coach for 30 years. Past positions include serving as Director of Psychiatric Inpatient Services at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, Colorado; Medical Director of Clinical Improvement at Group Health Cooperative in Seattle, Washington; and faculty and improvement advisor for ten years for the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. You can learn more and see client testimonials on his website at neilbakerconsulting.com.




Personal Mastery for Transformational Leadership

Documents

Transcript of Personal Mastery for Transformational Leadership