James Scouller's Blog, page 8
December 4, 2015
Thoughts About Vision (Part 1)
October 4, 2015
What Do I Think About Strengths-Based Leadership?
Several readers of The Three Levels of Leadership have written to ask: what do you think about strengths-based leadership? So I thought this would be a good subject for the blog, but before answering this question, it’s worth summarising the key ideas of strengths-based leadership. They are as follows:
Major Ideas
Based on extensive research by Gallup, the authors of Strength-Based Leadership (SBL), Tom Rath and Barry Conchie, put forward these conclusions:
The best leaders know their distinctive strengths , keep sharpening them and know which strengths to use at the right time. They also know their weaknesses .
They believe they don’t need to be well-rounded and don’t try to be, but they believe their team must be well-rounded. So they surround themselves with people who complement their strengths, put them in the right roles and create a balanced team. A “balanced team” covers all four strength domains: (1) executing (2) influencing (3) relationship building (4) strategic thinking . In this way they cover their weaknesses and motivate the team members.
They understand and deliver what their followers need: trust , compassion , stability and hope . Thus, they care about people, win their trust and inspire hope and optimism.
With these three ideas in mind, I offer four thoughts:
Thought 1
I wouldn’t disagree with these three conclusions.
However, as good as the SBL body of work is, it typifies a common approach to developing leaders: “Here is what the best leaders do, copy them and you will succeed.” The trouble is, this thinking ignores a common reality buried deep within our psychology: our limiting beliefs. These beliefs spawn habits that can and usually do block our ability to apply good insights like the SBL conclusions.
Thus, I’d point out that applying these truths is easier said than done. You see, there is a gap between grasping these insights intellectually and using them under pressure.
Why? It’s because our most powerful subconscious limiting beliefs can:
Block or undermine our awareness of – and interest in knowing – our strengths and weaknesses , particularly the latter. This is because some leaders find it too uncomfortable to consider their weaknesses seriously, especially if they harbour ideas (and many do) that they are not good enough.
Block or undermine our resilience under pressure, making it hard to embody the stability and hope that followers want. And with reduced resilience, prolonged pressure and repeated adverse events, we can be tempted to act selfishly by criticising, blaming or avoiding responsibility, causing others to distrust our motives. This is, of course, the opposite of what SBL leaders are supposed to do.
Block or undermine our ability to connect with others emotionally, feel compassion and show we care . I explained in chapter 7 of The Three Levels of Leadership that many leaders struggle to care about others because, without realising, they’re spending all their emotional energy defending themselves against their greatest fears – for example, of failing, of not being up to the task, of being ignored by people they see as more important, or of being rejected.
Block or undermine our readiness to surround ourselves with people who can offset our talent gaps and do what we can’t . Leaders (and there are many) who fear being challenged by others or letting people who know more than them question their aims and ideas will be loath to cover their weaknesses by bringing in people who have strengths they lack. It’s a solid idea in theory, but working with clients I’ve found it won’t happen unless leaders feel good about themselves. After all, this idea of creating a balanced team has been around – and backed by research, especially by Meredith Belbin’s work on team roles – since the 1970s. But nearly 50 years on, the Belbin team roles idea hasn’t become mainstream. Why? Not because it’s no good. Mainly, in my view, because many leaders don’t accept that they need a well-rounded team – and won’t until they let go of their key limiting beliefs.
In short, our limiting beliefs can block the strengths-based approach to leadership. How do you get beyond them? By recognising and dissolving these beliefs through practising self-mastery, perhaps with an executive coach’s help. Self-mastery is a key element of what I call “personal leadership”: that is, growing one’s ability to lead.
Thought 2
Putting together a group with balanced talents is important, but all groups – balanced or not – go through sticky patches because when adults get together to do joint work, unhelpful things can happen. Like conflict, cliques, groupthink and under-contributing (social loafing). And if no one else steps in – even if they have the underlying talent to do so – leaders must make the first move. After all, leaders cannot delegate their responsibility to make sure there is leadership (in other words, to make sure the group addresses all four dimensions of leadership).
This ability to step in demands behavioural flexibility. It doesn’t mean leaders must be good at everything, but it does mean they must be ready and able to stretch their behaviour when the group needs it. Thus, avoiding certain so-called behavioural weaknesses – like a wish to avoid conflict – can be a problem … which takes us to thought 3.
Thought 3
I would agree there are some weaknesses that are difficult to develop – like the ability to be an out-of-the-box thinker – because they demand certain innate strengths (or “talents” to use the SBL authors’ word).
But there are behavioural weaknesses – a better word is “rigidities” – which may appear innate or immutable, but aren’t. In my experience, it’s worth working on these so-called weaknesses because a good coach can help leaders dissolve the blocks and increase their behavioural flexibility. In this way they can apply the lessons of strength-based leadership when they otherwise couldn’t.
Thought 4
Understanding and delivering followers’ four needs ( trust , compassion , stability and hope ) does, it seems to me, imply a certain well-roundedness that the strength-based leadership model rejects. Caring about people (compassion), being resilient under pressure (providing stability and hope) and displaying the kind of presence that means they never behave selfishly or fail to do what they said they would do (thus winning others trust) is easy to describe and hard to do. In my experience, it needs a degree of psychological wholeness (or well-roundedness) that’s rare in leaders who haven’t worked on what I call personal leadership, especially self-mastery.
So while I agree that the best leaders understand and deliver their colleagues’ four needs, I wonder whether this part of the SBL model is consistent with the “there’s no need to be the well-rounded leader” dictum of strengths-based leadership.
Overall – and putting my fourth thought aside – I’d argue that if they wish to apply the well-researched, valid insights of strengths-based leadership, most leaders should work on their personal leadership, especially self-mastery. Otherwise SBL will remain theory.
The author is James Scouller, an executive coach. His book, The Three Levels of Leadership: How to Develop Your Leadership Presence, Knowhow and Skill, was published in May 2011. You can learn more about it at www.three-levels-of-leadership.com. If you want to see its reviews, click here: leadership book reviews. If you want to know where to buy it, click HERE. You can read more about his executive coaching services at The Scouller Partnership’s website.
September 7, 2015
What Is Self-Mastery & Why Is It A Game-Changer?
After The Three Levels of Leadership came out in 2011, readers followed up with questions on leadership, leadership psychology and self-mastery – all of them interesting. So interesting, in fact, that I’m releasing my answers here as they supplement the “Three Levels” material and others may find them useful. Here’s the fifteenth in the series. I’ll post the others over the coming months…
Q15. What exactly is self-mastery in the context of leadership and what makes it game-changing and beneficial for leaders? [This was asked by Joe Scherrer of the Leadership Crucible in the course of an interview in October 2013 for his website.]
“Well, self-mastery, in essence, is inside-out-based change… change from the inside out … where you become aware of what’s happening in your mind and take gradually command of it.
This allows you to express your highest potential…not just for your benefit, but in the service of others. It includes recognising your most important limiting beliefs (beliefs about yourself and the world), letting them go and then practising new, more skilful behaviours. That way you transform as a leader.
I’d say self-mastery is the key to your inner psychological growth, developing your leadership presence and applying everything you know under pressure – skilfully, wisely and powerfully.
The result? Your inner tensions and conflicts fade, you can flow at last and be the real you and feel greater empathy and connection with others. You can be fully present to whomever you’re with or whatever’s happening around you and choose your reactions in the moment. (And by reactions I mean your emotional and your behavioural reactions. That way, you’ll be at your most skilful and powerful.)
That raises another point. You see, many of us have attended courses and learnt new skills, techniques and frameworks, but afterwards we couldn’t apply them under pressure – or we even forget about them. That’s usually because those skills and tools butt up against unrecognised, unconscious limiting beliefs that cause subtle mental divisions and conflicts and these stop us applying what we learned. Sometimes, these beliefs even make us believe we don’t have to learn anything new! This is where self-mastery is so important. It helps us realise where we need to grow, what we need to learn and allows us to try new behaviours by dissolving the old beliefs that would have blocked them.
I mentioned the connection between self-mastery and leadership presence. Leadership presence is so important. It’s the “something” that radiates genuineness, that attracts people, causing them to trust you and want you as a leader. It’s priceless, so any practice that can help you let your unique presence unfold, like self-mastery, is invaluable. So there’s another benefit.
Self-mastery is also essential for raising your mental resilience. Most leaders, especially CEOs, work under huge pressure which can lead to anxiety, health problems and bad decisions. But leaders that practise self-mastery will find their ability to withstand pressure increases enormously. Why? Essentially because they don’t take that pressure as seriously as they used to; they don’t take it so personally. So I’d say the ability to be resilient under pressure is an important advantage for leaders. And that’s something else self-mastery can help with.”
August 3, 2015
Self-Mastery & Leadership
Lao Tzu, the Chinese sage (not the bloke who wrote The Art of War – that was Sun Tzu), said this about self-mastery: “He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still.”
I agree. In my book, The Three Levels of Leadership, I talk about self-mastery as the key to taking command of your thoughts, feelings and behaviour in the service of others as a leader, especially when you’re under pressure. I believe it’s the essential discipline of the third level of leadership that I call “personal leadership”.
Definitions
I defined self-mastery in chapter 3 of the book as, “Being aware of, understanding, taking command of, integrating and transforming the limiting parts of your psychology to overcome inner divisions and become whole, to grow and to express your highest potential.”
Later on, in offering a leader’s map of the psyche in chapter 8, I asked: “What is the ‘you’ that is being aware of, understanding, taking command of, integrating and transforming its psychology?”
The answer I gave is “Self.” This led me to another, simpler definition of self-mastery: “It is the Self’s mastery of the energies and contents of its mind.” The rest of chapter 8 offered a practical map of the mind and chapter 9 outlined the principles and techniques of self-mastery.
Dalai Lama Fellows
Given what I believe is the importance of self-mastery in becoming the best leader you can be, I’m always interested in how others define it. On the Dalai Lama Fellows website they describe self-mastery as having 8 elements:
Being Present: Being fully aware and awake in the present moment – physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually.
Compassion: Having acceptance and kindness to oneself and others, and an intention to alleviate suffering and promote well-being.
Suspension and Letting Go: The ability to experience a thought or emotion without reacting or responding right away.
Personal Power: Using one’s energy and drive to manifest wise actions in the world.
Holding Paradoxes, Multiple World Views and Ambiguities: The ability to sit with ambiguity and hold multiple perspectives when working with others.
Intention Aligned With Higher Purpose: Using what moves you at your core to assist others in the world.
Whole Self-Awareness: The life-long process of paying attention to all aspects of yourself.
Sense of Humour: Light-heartedness and never taking one’s self-image too seriously.
Process vs Results
Now when I talk about self-mastery I usually focus on the process rather than the results so this is a different way of looking at it. But it’s a valuable perspective and as a set of self-mastery outcomes, I wouldn’t disagree. Interestingly – as readers of my book will know – there are overlaps between the eight-point list and what I describe as the seven qualities of presence.
But it just goes to show that truth can never be adequately expressed in words. There is always another angle. In listing the DLF’s eight points – which, by the way, they adapted from work by Christopher Baan, Phil Long, and Dana Pearlman in The Lotus: A Practice Guide for Authentic Leadership Toward Sustainability – I hope they’ll enrich your understanding of why practising self-mastery as a leader is so beneficial.
July 10, 2015
Where Did My False Beliefs Come From?
After The Three Levels of Leadership came out in 2011, readers followed up with questions on leadership, leadership psychology and self-mastery – all of them interesting. So interesting, in fact, that I’m releasing my answers here as they supplement the “Three Levels” material and others may find them useful. Here’s the fourteenth in the series. I’ll post the others over the coming months…
Q14. Where did my False Self beliefs come from, especially my negative self-image ?
“In a sense it doesn’t matter where they came from. What only matters is that you have a False Self self-image.
I say that not to dismiss the importance of the question, but to focus you on the practical challenge before you. You see, it’s interesting to understand the origins of your False Self beliefs, but it won’t necessarily help you move beyond them, to let them go.
The Key: Self-Mastery
The key is to see clearly what those False Self beliefs in your mind are – especially those comprising your self-image.
I am not suggesting you should do this all at once. Indeed, I would strongly recommend you do not because otherwise it could leave you with an identity crisis. But I am suggesting that you see your False Self piece by piece and challenge it bit by bit; dissolving it as you go. This is the practice of self-mastery and it will allow your leadership presence to flow.
Having said all this, let me give you one example of how a False Self self-image can arise…
How Limiting Self-Image Beliefs Can Arise
Imagine an infant, say three months old. Now the infant has the power of self-awareness, but it has very little sense of self (self-image) to put in that awareness. So how does the infant acquire a sense of who it is? The answer is that it builds a sense of self-image from how it interprets its early experiences.
Now an infant can’t describe its self-image in words because it’s in what psychologists call the pre-verbal stage of life. Nonetheless, the basic capacities of awareness and intellect are alive and functioning in the infant. Thus, if parents continually ignore the infant – for example, if they don’t change its nappy when the infant needs or don’t feed it when it’s hungry – you can understand why the infant might develop the basic idea that it’s not important to its parents.
You see, we human beings seem to want to make meaning of everything. It seems we can’t bear to not make meaning of our circumstances – even if the meaning we confer is frightening, negative or depressing. Thus, is it not logical for the infant to infer in a primitive, pre-verbal way that being constantly ignored means it’s not important, that it’s insignificant?
At that time in its life, the infant doesn’t have the ability to say to itself, “Now hold on, of course I’m important. It’s just that my parents are having a hard time in their marriage right now. And anyway Auntie Sarah and Uncle Jack always pay me attention, so that shows I’m important to some people.” So the infant’s belief about its unimportance sticks.
And if that belief persists throughout childhood and then adolescence and into early adulthood it can cause serious problems because holding the belief that you are insignificant, that the world wouldn’t notice if you weren’t around, is inherently shaming. And shame hurts – I talked about the chronic pain that shame causes in answering the first question here. And it’s the pain that drives people to protect themselves from these feelings of shame through defensive mindsets and behaviours.
How This Affects Leaders
Now you will find senior managers – senior leaders – who have versions of insignificance-related limiting beliefs in their minds. There are more subtle versions of them, but they are merely variations on a theme. And insignificance-related beliefs will make it very hard for a person to come into contact naturally with people they don’t know well (or at all).
It will force them to develop defensive, unnatural behaviours to protect themselves against the experience of being ignored, which would only remind them of how unimportant they are.
In the main, you will see two opposite types of defensive behaviour in dealing with an insignificance belief. You will either see leaders reluctant to be visible, to speak up or to connect with people they don’t know well. Instead they will stay around people they are close to or to work behind closed doors. Or you will see them go to the opposite end of the scale and behave “over-socially”, where they’re driven to be loud, visible and ultra-sociable in a way that others will often see as unnatural, superficial and off-putting.
I don’t want to say more than that, but I hope that gives you an idea about how the False Self can develop.
The Practice of Self-Mastery
To finish on a practical note, the key to breaking free though is not usually to have brilliant insights into the origins of your False Self, but instead to understand what form it takes today, prise apart its constituent beliefs, challenge them and let them go. This is the process of self-mastery, which I cover in chapter 9 of The Three Levels of Leadership.”
June 7, 2015
The First Quality of Leadership Presence: Personal Power
In my book, The Three Levels of Leadership, I’ve written about “leadership presence”. In chapter 5, I described the seven qualities of presence, the first being Personal Power.
Personal power is control over your mind. It recognises that although we can’t always control outer events – including others’ behaviour towards us – we can always choose our response to those events. Thus, it’s power over oneself; it’s not a drive to gain power over other people. It doesn’t spring from a need to gain the status, prestige or visibility that power over others brings or an urge to impose your viewpoint through force.
The importance of personal power is this: if you can’t direct and lead yourself, you’ll find it hard to direct others because they’ll sense your lack of inner command. Thus, personal power (as opposed to the power that impressive job titles offer) is crucial to anyone wanting to be a successful leader.
Why am I writing about this now? Because I read an interesting article by Luke Johnson in today’s Sunday Times (7 June 2015). It was headlined “Don’t run a business if you can’t even run your own life.”
Johnson was arguing that every entrepreneur needs willpower. But what he was talking about were aspects of Personal Power. It’s worth reading his take on the subject because no one author’s words or style can appeal to everyone and his angle may help you understand Personal Power better. Here are selected excerpts from his article:
“… over many years in business I have come to the conclusion there is one defining attribute above all others that marks a successful entrepreneur. It is self-discipline. Possess that and all other qualities are secondary. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say willpower is the vital ingredient. As President Harry S Truman said: ‘In reading the lives of great men, I found that the first victory they won was over themselves… self-discipline with all of them came first’.”
“The opposite of self-discipline is a life of excuses. Those who are lazy, or procrastinate, who are risk-averse, or unwilling to forfeit pleasures in the present for future gains, are highly unlikely to build a worthwhile business. I meet many would-be entrepreneurs who parade the same old justifications as to why they can’t take the plunge and start their own company. They complain they lack capital; I would argue they need to start a business that needs none, or be more imaginative in how they raise it, or get going on a shoestring and grow. Others say they cannot survive without the income from a steady job; I would respond that any important step requires sacrifice – perhaps a business can be started part-time, or perhaps their personal life will have to be more frugal.”
“Other aspiring entrepreneurs talk of how they have suffered bad luck. I worry that such an attitude betrays a belief they are powerless to influence the future, a passive willingness to let life happen to them. Those who possess willpower seize the day and actively control their destiny.”
“As you climb the greasy pole, willpower remains important even as you amass wealth and power. You must resist temptation in various forms – the inclination to become boastful, or a megalomaniac, or a bully, or complacent, or intolerant of dissent. Entrepreneurs and chief executives frequently succumb to delusions of grandeur because they lose the self-discipline that got them to the top in the first place.”
“Those who possess self-discipline reap advantages in all aspects of life: their relationships, their health, their finances, their skills.”
Well said, Mr Johnson.
May 11, 2015
Shared Accountability
Last year, I was coaching the President of a large European business. The subject of “accountability” arose. She remarked that, “Shared accountability is no accountability.”
In my CEO days, I would have agreed with her. Like most corporate men, I assumed that one person in the team must hold accountability for results on behalf of the business. Eleven years on, I hold a different view.
Since those days, I’ve learned the important difference between a “working group” and a real “team”. In fact, in my CEO days I didn’t realise these two ideas existed – I was only aware of “teams”. But most executive so-called “teams” are really working groups.
The distinguishing feature of a working group is the single leader – the person who holds other members accountable for their individual performance. Leaders in this scenario are like the hub of a wheel, connected by spokes to their colleagues. The key relationships are one-to-one between leader and the “followers” … even though the group might get together to share information, make decisions and coordinate actions.
But in a real team you find shared accountability stemming from shared leadership.
In fact, that’s the main distinguishing difference between teams and working groups.
Yes, there may be an official leader in a real team, but all members hold themselves accountable for their own contribution and are prepared to hold others accountable for theirs if they feel they are underperforming. They don’t wait for the leader to intervene – they speak up.
You’ll see this in genuine “high performance teams” – which, by the way, is an overused term in business because they are so rare.
Examples include elite sports teams and Special Forces units in the army. People I’ve spoken to say that if you were watching such teams in action, it would be hard to spot who the leader was by observing everyone’s behaviour. Why? Because everyone is holding everyone else accountable. So, perhaps surprisingly, shared accountability means greater peer pressure and accountability, not no accountability.
The trouble is, in industry, we assume someone has to carry the can if it all goes wrong, meaning that when we use the word “accountability” our real intent is often having someone to blame. As in, “I recognise the CEO wasn’t directly responsible for what his people did lower down in the organisation, but he had to be held accountable.” What we really want is a scapegoat.
I feel that we in industry have a crude, incomplete understanding of accountability and we’re using outdated presuppositions (for example, that “you can’t share leadership” or “we are a team”). Time, I believe, to think again about working groups, teams, accountability and the assumptions we’re making.
April 21, 2015
The Language of Change (part 4)
Post 3 of 4 in a series of articles on the subject of leading large-scale change in organisations (part 4).
The first post looked at the power and dangers of metaphors in leading change and suggested replacing the “burning platform” with the idea of a “High Noon moment”. The second post discussed the dangers of underestimating how long it takes people to change and what you can do about it. This post – which is appearing in four parts (this is the fourth) – continues examining how leaders can frame their change language to best effect.
In The Language of Change part 1 we looked at the confirmation bias, critiqued the usual approach to change communication and introduced a new three-step process:
Get your audience’s urgent attention
Stimulate desire for a new future
Then and only then… appeal to the intellect
In The Language of Change part 2, I offered practical tips on how to get your change audience’s urgent attention. In part 3, I offered advice on how to stimulate desire for the new future (the change idea). In this final part 4, I suggest ways of appealing to the intellect to make sure second thoughts don’t creep in and sabotage the will to change. Again, this will be in bullet-point form.
Here you engage their intellect to back up and justify their emotion (desire).
You give compelling reasons why the change makes sense, how it can happen (so they know it’s possible) and why you should sustain it. Thus, you use the confirmation bias to your advantage – you help the audience confirm the wisdom of the decision they’ve been edging towards, reinforcing their desire to act.
Be careful with bullet-point reasoning, data, statistics, metrics, Gantt charts or excess detail. It’s better to use stories showing what makes sense and why / how the future will unfold. Stories appeal to heart and mind, packing more of an emotional punch.
You can tell the story of “what the change looks like” from a user or customer’s angle or how they might experience it in the new future, perhaps using props.
Or you could tell the story of “how to get from here to there”.
Or the story of “how it will work”, e.g. by explaining the new business model.
Or tell the story of “why it’s inevitable that it will work”.
And that’s the essence of it. Everything else about the language of change – at least what you say verbally – is just detail. Your presence, your body language? Now that’s another matter…
April 20, 2015
The Language of Change (part 3)
Post 3 of 4 in a series of articles on the subject of leading large-scale change in organisations (part 3).
The first post looked at the power and dangers of metaphors in leading change and suggested replacing the “burning platform” with the idea of a “High Noon moment”. The second post discussed the dangers of underestimating how long it takes people to change and what you can do about it. This post – which is appearing in four parts (this is the third) – continues examining how leaders can frame their change language to best effect.
In The Language of Change part 1 we looked at the confirmation bias, critiqued the usual approach to change communication and introduced a new three-step process:
Get your audience’s urgent attention
Stimulate desire for a new future
Then and only then… appeal to the intellect
In The Language of Change part 2, I offered practical tips on how to get your change audience’s urgent attention. In this part 3, I offer advice on how to stimulate desire for the new future (the change idea). Again, this will be in bullet-point form.
General Advice
Getting people’s attention does not automatically equal a desire to act!
Although step #1 often needs the negative, this step #2 must stress the positive. Why? Because negative stories trigger flight/fright/freeze – all of which can block wise, urgent, powerful action.
To stimulate desire you obviously have to establish an emotional connection with your message. It’s about stirring up emotion without upsetting their self-esteem.
It’s not about imposing your will. Instead – having helped them see the dangers of the status quo / current trajectory – it’s about enabling them to see that their “story” must change – they have to see themselves, the world and their relations with others and emerging pressures in a new light. Sometimes, especially with people senior to you, it’s about helping them discover the story for themselves.
Obviously, this new “story” must fit the facts = it must be credible.
Don’t say too much! Offer a framework, and let them add personalised details if possible. Now you’re co-creating the change so they are more likely to own it and act. This is key if they’re higher than you in the hierarchy. Even if they’re not, it’s good to not give too much detail so they can co-create the “how” of the change (if not the “what”), especially if they’ll be executing the change with you. Try saying, “I need your help…” as this flips the boss / subordinate roles, engaging them by transferring power.
For maximum power, the change idea/end state/goal/vision must:
Be intrinsically motivating … meaning it must connect with their values and they must believe it’s possible. [Both conditions must be true for it to be motivating]
Be memorable = succinct, catchy.
Be one that allows the audience to contribute to and build on (= co-creating).
Be positive to/for them = delivers benefits.
Generate a new story in people’s minds, i.e. a new mental construction: a new sense of identity … or a new sense of what is important or necessary … or a new sense of the situation’s dangers and the need to act … or a new sense of what’s possible and worthwhile for them and their dependents.
This is not the place for burning platform stories. That is for step 1. They are great for getting attention, but if they are overdone you can create fear, inhibiting action, which is bad for step 2. Even if it gets action, it may be grudging compliance rather than wholehearted backing, which will break down when you meet obstacles.
Nor is it the moment to present arguments and reasons as they won’t listen if they’re already hostile or sceptical – remember the confirmation bias. They’ll silently answer your arguments with a counterargument, probably without you knowing. Leave that to step 3 (covered in the next post).
Techniques
These are easy-to-use and generally effective desire-building methods:
Start a story with “what if…” Removes ego from the discussion, making it easier for curiosity to flow.
Tell a positive story with a credible happy ending (in the eyes of the audience). Very useful as the “seeing is believing” method (next idea) isn’t always possible.
Seeing is believing : finding a way for the audience to see or experience the new possibility for themselves. Perhaps with a demo of what the end result would look like with a working prototype.
Externalise the obstacle to change . This is making the “threat” outside rather than inside, making it easier to mobilise people.
Use a metaphor that points to a relevant story . Stephen Denning offers the example of prostitutes in India persuading their clients to use condoms: “if you want to enjoy the fruits of the tree you must keep it healthy.”
Offer a positive challenge . “Let’s win this for Neymar” was the Brazil football team’s warcry after they lost their star player to injury in the 2014 World Cup.
Tell a “common memory” story . Get people to recall a shared experience which provokes emotions that can trigger change. “Remember the time we…”
Invent a memorable saying, e.g. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”, e.g. “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.”
The next post – the last in The Language of Change series – will appear tomorrow and offer advice on step #3: how to appeal to the intellect with stories.
April 19, 2015
The Language of Change (part 2)
Post 3 of 4 in a series of articles on the subject of leading large-scale change in organisations (part 2).
The first post looked at the power and dangers of metaphors in leading change and suggested replacing the “burning platform” with the idea of a “High Noon moment”. The second post discussed the dangers of underestimating how long it takes people to change and what you can do about it. This post – which is appearing in four parts (this is the second) – continues examining how leaders can frame their change language to best effect.
In the previous post (Leading Change part 1) we looked at the confirmation bias, critiqued the usual approach to change communication and introduced a new three-step process:
Get your audience’s urgent attention
Stimulate desire for a new future
Then and only then… appeal to the intellect
This post zeroes in on step #1 and offers practical tips in bullet-point format on how to get your change audience’s urgent attention.
The Basics
You have to gain their attention and create dissatisfaction with the status quo before you can talk about the vision, end game or change idea. If you don’t, they’ll lack the desire to change. And if they lack that, it doesn’t matter how powerful you are, you’ll usually fail.
Personalise the message to the audience and their situation + evoke an emotional response + be concise. Note: Negative messages hit harder than positive ones.
If possible, make the message unexpected or surprising as this increases the impact.
It helps to start by saying something they already believe or agree with. That way you’ll reduce the confirmation bias effect; then and only then challenge the status quo.
Understanding Your Change Audience
Before crafting the message, learn what (1) worries them, not what worries you; or (2) could tap into their desire to change. Questions to ask yourself (or them):
What’s the story they tell themselves that keeps them imprisoned?” (Example: the rich will get richer and we’ll get poorer and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.)
Behind that, what individual or collective beliefs do they hold or what assumptions are they making that’s stopping them seeing the problem or a way out?”
Which of their heartfelt dreams or chief values remain unfulfilled?” (Think especially of Maslow’s esteem, belonging and safety needs.)
Ways To Get Their Urgent Attention
Once you understand them, here are good ways of getting their urgent attention:
Tell stories to show them how serious the problem is and how it’s getting worse.
Ask a surprising question to focus attention on the problem (but make sure their answer will help you make your point).
Use striking metaphors. (“Jaws in Space” was how the idea for the the film Alien was sold.)
Tell stories to remind them of what they care about most, but have perhaps forgotten or given up on… and therefore aren’t getting.
Launch an exercise to sharpen awareness of the problem’s gravity/immediacy.
Give people a demonstration of something that emphasises the need for change, making sure that it’s not too long.
And Don’t Forget…
Don’t tell people (or imply) that they ‘re wrong or stupid or have been making foolish mistakes until your arrival… even if you’re right. That only gets their backs up, which guarantees resentment and then resistance. You may think this is obvious, but as a leader under pressure, it’s easy to fall into this trap. I should know – I’ve done it myself.
As you do all this, you must appear friendly. More than that, be real: be open, show your vulnerability, for example, what you don’t know or mistakes you’ve made. Your genuineness in others’ eyes is key. If you’re asking people to change, they must trust you.
The next post, which will appear tomorrow, will offer advice on step 2: how to stimulate desire for the change idea.
