This article will explore the manifestation of generations in the workplace through the lens of a compelling model that considers generational “personas” throughout history and their cyclical relationship to each other. By examining the dynamics of the generations present in today’s organizations, including their collective strengths, limitations, and the generational biases they may hold, I hope to provide a fresh perspective on workplace conflicts, leadership blind spots, and the promise of intergenerational collaboration as a means to elevate organizational potential and future success.

Generations Theory

There are a number of research studies, articles, and books that describe the historical and socioeconomic trends that influence the traits of different generations. Foremost, however, is the research conducted by historians William Strauss and Neil Howe. Strauss and Howe’s seminal book, Generations: A History of America’s Future 1584 to 2069 (William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1991), examines the socioeconomic, cultural, and political conditions throughout American history and their impact on the formation of distinct generational characterizations, or “peer personalities.” A number of factors influence peer personalities, including the cultural norms for childrearing at the time, the perception of the world as members of the generation start to come of age, and the common experiences the generation encounters as it enters the adult world. In this way, a generational identity is formed that has distinct effects on the environment and, in turn, younger generations.

After examining the history of the United States, Strauss and Howe maintain that each generation falls into one of four archetypes that repeat in a fixed, cyclical pattern, roughly every 80 years. The archetypes are Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist (see “Generational Archetypes”). At a macro level, generations in each archetype tend to share similar experiences and have comparable impacts on the culture as they move through the four stages of maturity: childhood, young adult, midlife leader, and elder. For instance, Prophet generations tend to be indulged as children, immersed in spiritual self-discovery as young adults, preoccupied with moral principles as midlife leaders, and vision-driven as elders. Artist generations, on the other hand, are inclined to be smothered and overprotected as children, sensitive and conforming as young adults, tolerant and indecisive as midlife leaders, and empathetic to younger generations as elders. These archetypal tendencies impact the culture as they surface in social activism, leadership styles, organizational priorities, and national policy.

Each generation overcorrects what it perceives to be the excesses of its predecessors. Accordingly, at any given time in history, each archetype’s collective reaction to the social climate of the times, together with its related influence on those times, creates a predictable and repetitive pattern of both generational personas and social phases (see “Generational Cycles,” p. 2). In essence, the cyclical recurrence of the four archetypes serves as a natural balancing process that manages the inevitable tension between two powerful and polar social forces — civic order and personal fulfillment. The effect of this loop is to impel the evolution of society forward in a spiral process not unlike the seasonal changes of nature: from summer’s heat to autumn’s harvest, followed by the cold of winter and the eventual germination of spring (for more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_and_ Howe).

The Strauss and Howe model asserts the possibility that, at some level, we as a society have been here before. If history repeats itself, it does so because of the complex tensions and ongoing negotiations between the equally important human precepts of order and freedom, secular stability and spiritual fulfillment, communal good and individual rights. If our relationship to these core principles is informed by our generational experience, then many of our own mental models, biases, and behaviors will, to some degree, be tied to our place in time and reinforced by our peers. In addition, this model suggests that each generation has a crucial place in this evolutionary cycle, a particular contribution to make, one that may not be obvious to those blinded by their generation’s limited perspective. Generational theory and the data that supports it can expose the intergenerational biases that covertly occupy our workplace and illuminate the cooperative potential that exists in our current place in time, as we confront the future and strive to tackle the looming issues of our day.

With the implications of this theory in mind, let’s take a closer look at the four generations currently in the workforce.

The Generations of Today’s Workplace

The landscape in today’s workplace includes four different generations, each with a distinct set of defining experiences and attributes — both strengths and limitations — that characterize its overall leadership and cultural impact. There are of course individual exceptions to and variations from this big-picture model; nonetheless, I invite you to consider how your generation’s collective characteristics might, in some respects, be true for you, and whether that insight can inform the way you perceive and interact with others.

There are differing opinions on the birth years that define the generations; however, the dates given below reflect those published by Strauss and Howe, who present strong justification and sociological relevance for the ranges they cite.

Silent Generation (Artist Archetype) Born: 1925–1942

The Silent Generation still maintains a small presence in the workforce, although most make up today’s senior citizen demographic. Silents were children during the Great Depression and World War II. Largely overprotected by their parents, they were quiet and obedient, living with food rationing and the daily fear of bad news, be it a foreclosure, a layoff, or a war casualty. Outflanked in both numbers and stature on one end by the great sacrificing war heroes of the older G. I. generation, and on the other end by the indulged new generation of postwar “victory babies,” Silents were expected to do little more than tow the line of progress. As a generation, they married early, had children quickly, and subsequently endured the highest divorce rate in history. Nonetheless, many Silents went from penniless children to affluent elders. Committed to public interest advocacy, the Silent Generation produced Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, and while they still hold approximately 25 percent of national leadership positions in state and federal government, they have yet to produce a U. S. president.

As leaders, Silents tend to focus on process and protocol, endlessly refining approaches, mediating differences, and seeking elegant ways to build compromise. They were the fine-tuning engineers who put Neil Armstrong on the moon, the expert proponents of Total Quality Management, and the tolerant designers of integrated school systems. Often viewed by other generations as timid, unconfident, and ineffective, the Silent generation nonetheless exhibits the kind of modesty and poise that serves as a quiet reminder of the enduring virtues of respectful process, genteel behavior, and inclusive conduct, standards that will likely have a crucial role in our global future.

Baby Boom Generation (Prophet Archetype) Born: 1943–1960

Both in size and prowess, the Baby Boom is the dominant generation of our time. Boomers grew up in an era of indulgent parenting and prosperous times. As “Leave It to Beaver” youth, they were expected to follow in the G. I.s’ footsteps and build the next golden age. Confident and filled with the potential of creative independence, Boomers have not, however, embraced the grand civic destiny that their parents envisioned for them. Rather, the “Me” generation has rebelled against authority, resisted conforming to the status quo, and taken the notions of individualism and generational identity to a new level. From the “consciousness revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s, to the “yuppies” of the 1980s, to the polarized culture wars of today, the Baby Boomers as a generation are known for their fixation on self, youth, individual expression, and intractable moral convictions about right and wrong. Communal and well-networked, their collective passions and values have become a mainstay in our culture and are squarely reflected in our nation’s consumer, corporate, and leadership trends.

Baby Boomers inhabit the most powerful leadership positions throughout the United States — including the presidency — and hold much of the experiential, institutional, and political knowledge in the workplace. As leaders, Boomers tend to be vision- and mission-focused, sometimes to the point of being unwilling to move ahead without a highly principled course of action in place. As transformers, they frequently seek to reorganize, redefine, or overhaul their organizations. In every sector, Boomers often want to make their mark through an improvement, distinction, or change. Many lack the discipline, however, to see transitions through or are intolerant to the resistance that comes with change.

Often married to their work, Boomers have embraced the 24/7, driven, competitive work ethic and, as a result, tend to remain short-term focused — be it the end of the quarter, the budget cycle, or their term. For many, this pressure-driven mentality can trigger reactive decision-making, trumping more systemic, long-term strategic thinking. As they retire, the Baby Boom generation will enter their Elderhood — the phase of life during which past Prophet generations have made their most potent leadership contributions.

X Generation (Nomad Archetype) Born: 1961–1981

Xers came of age in the 1970s and 1980s, when the prevailing message of the day was to grow up fast. Primarily children to working, in many cases divorced parents from the Silent generation, Xers were deemed “latch-key kids” for the adult-centric childrearing practices that left many youngsters largely unsupervised by today’s standards. Self-reliant and street-wise at an early age, leading-edge Xers graduated from college in greater debt than any previous generation. Many were forced to take low-level, low-paying “McJobs” as they sought entry into the Boomer dominated, “leaner and meaner,” competitive marketplace. Criticized as “slackers” by the media, Xers learned to rely on their finely honed survival skills and comfort with the fast-paced, changing landscape of the Information Age. Independent, pragmatic, and technologically resourceful, Xers are currently some of the most sought-after employees in the workforce.

As casualties of the era of corporate downsizing, Xers tend to be skeptical of promises and grand policy visions and, hence, demonstrate little organizational loyalty. Their pragmatism leads them to measure their success on their most recent accomplishments or acquired skills versus contributions to a greater vision. There are relatively few Xers in leadership positions today, with the exception of the high-tech industry and entrepreneurial ventures. Xers tend to be highly pragmatic, no-nonsense, action-oriented, good at learning on the fly, and opportunistic (which can appear to Boomers as unprincipled). They can be good team collaborators when not bogged down with idealistic debates and tend to be proficient with deliverables and project management. Accustomed to fending for themselves, most Xers prefer to focus on their own sphere of influence — family and friends. Many aren’t willing to embrace the 24/7 work ethic, and often put work-life balance over income and career advancement. Xers have little awareness of their greater collective force as a generation, and as such often lack the networks and connections needed to influence institutions and the power to make beneficial changes.

Most organizations have failed to recognize the need to prepare Xers to take the lead in the coming generational shift. Lacking much formal leadership training or mentoring, Xers often struggle with the subtle nuances of leadership and can appear draconian when making decisions. History, however, holds a promise to leaders who strive to earn the trust of this talented generation. The X generation’s collective life skills and deep devotion to the future welfare of their children will arouse for many the courage to commit to meaningful challenges and the endurance to see through hard times.

Millennial (Y) Generation (Hero Archetype) Born: 1982–2002

The oldest Millennials (or “Gen Y,” as some call them) are just now entering the workforce. They have a different set of childhood experiences than the other three generations, and while they are still quite young, they are nonetheless making themselves known. Largely children of Baby Boomers, Millennials were born at a time when there was a tremendous social investment in children and childhood programming. From “baby on board” stickers announcing their presence to fully scheduled days being bustled from one adult-led activity to another, Millennials have led highly protected and programmed lives. They were indoctrinated into the paradigm of standardized testing and are byproducts of the self-esteem movement that infiltrated school curricula in the 1990s, proclaiming all children to be “winners.” As such, Millennials are accustomed to frequent praise for all activities and accomplishments. The digital communication age is their birth right, and they are technologically superior to older generations, including Xers. Because of the on demand capability to access information, many Millennials have a global understanding of the world and value diverse cultures, experiences, and environments. They tend to be accepting of differences and measure people on the quality of their talent and output, rather than on physical or cultural characteristics (for additional details, see Managing Generation Y by Carolyn A. Martin and Bruce Tulgan, HRD Press, 2001).

As they enter the workplace, Millennials bring enthusiasm along with a sense of entitlement. Many expect career-track guidance, supervisory oversight, and regular, appreciative acknowledgement. They are confident, bold, and willing to speak up for what they want. As employees, they will seek environments that address their needs for structure and adequate direction, balance between personal and professional pursuits, up-to-date technology, and a socially conscious mission.

The challenge of this generation lies in their heavy reliance on external stimuli and direction from above. They tend to lack the self-reliant skills of the Xers, and have little internal aptitude to process and effectively learn from failure. Given the demographic reality of the workforce over the next 20 years — according to the American Society of Training and Development, 76 million retiring and 46 million entering — skilled Millennials will have their choice of employers. Optimistic, technologically masterful, and civically focused, the Millennial generation promises to be a competent and highly productive workforce; however, they will need sufficient oversight, on-the-job training, and clear direction from older leaders—and they have the demographic power to demand it!

Intergenerational Conflicts in the Workplace

When considering the diverse perspectives, values, and competencies that exist in our multigenerational workforce, it becomes easier to glimpse the many possibilities for collaboration and cooperation that may be present. But collaboration of this magnitude will require some changes in the status quo. Before we can move into a productive future of shared vision for an intergenerational workplace, the two groups with the greatest leadership leverage— Boomers and Xers — must each take stock of the biases and mental models they hold in order to discover their intergenerational synergy.

Generational Biases. Intergenerational conflicts arise primarily from the biases that each peer group has about the others. Individually, we may be unaware of the insidiousness of these biases. Left unacknowledged, they have a profound effect on our ability to recognize areas of compatibility and work toward common purposes. Focusing on the Boom and X generations, “Boomer and Xer Biases” gives examples of commonly held biases each has of the other.

In essence, the biases each group has of the other reflect a generation centric perspective, one that fuels a belief that “my way is the right way” and “your way doesn’t measure up to my values.” These biases are further substantiated by peer reinforcement, as members of each generation talk among themselves about the way they see others. This dynamic interferes with the capacity of individuals to listen to and respect the perspectives and contributions of others, thereby blocking meaningful collaboration in teams, supervisory relationships, and between colleagues. Conducting candid discussions in mixed generational groups about the biases that exist can be an effective way to disarm the negative impacts they may have on collaborative thinking. Exposing biases can also illuminate important social issues that need to be addressed.

Generational Mental Models and Blind Spots. Our generational perspective contributes to the mental models we hold about ourselves, the world, and the way things “should” be. These beliefs create blind spots that can become our undoing as we pursue our values and seek to accomplish our goals. Likewise, they can have a powerful effect on our culture.

The generational mental models held by the Baby Boomers are clouded by the assumption that others see the world as they do. This is a typical perspective of powerful and dominant generations who, having had such a massive impact on the culture, are often unaware of how that impact is experienced by other generations. A prominent mental model shared by many Boomers is the tendency to view the rebellious era of their youth as their generation’s greatest contribution. This belief is reflected by Boomer obsessions with 1960s nostalgia, retro fashion, classic rock, and youthful enhancements like Botox and Viagra. There is a sense in which Boomers still view themselves as children, rather than the adult leaders and authorities that they are.

This self-immersion in the glories of the past — in which many Boomers “Questioned Authority” and waged adolescent wars against “The Man” — stands in stark contrast to the fact that, today, they are the establishment. The systemic impact of this reality is profound: If the collective attention of the leading generation appears to be focused on youthful notions of a time long gone, then who is attending to the present reality and the responsibilities of leading for the future? Certainly some individuals are doing so, but at the macro level, from the perspective of younger and older generations looking on, Boomers have all the positional and cultural power to affect change for the future. Yet as a generation, they appear fixated on preserving their youth, focused on competitive one-upmanship, mired in intractable positions, and inattentive to what is required for long-term sustainability. Such a perspective has eroded trust, respect, and confidence in Boomer leadership and colors the mental models of younger generations.

Accordingly, the mental models held by the X Generation are clouded by distrust and pessimism. As a less dominant and younger generation, they are naturally attuned to hypocrisy, and use any evidence of it to justify their cynicism and detachment. Disconnected from their own collective power, a mental model common to many Xers is the perception of themselves as loners who are on their own and have little in common with those outside of their intimate circles. As a result, most Xers see no point to activism and the spurring of institutional change. Rather, they prefer private solutions to public issues and seek to improve the quality of life within their own small sphere of influence. Practical and perhaps initially effective, the systemic impact of this perspective has its dysfunctional qualities. If this generation indeed has a deep commitment to family and the future of their children, yet remains apathetic about influencing the vision and direction of the institutions that affect them (employers, public schools, national agenda), then how will that bode for the future of their children? If Xers continue to opt out, they will in effect be leaving that future to chance.

Thinking Systemically About Workforce Demographics: A Case Study

Five years ago, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) at the U. S. Food and Drug Administration surveyed its workforce and discovered that most employees had been there for more than 25 or less than 5 years, and that the Center would be facing large numbers of retirements in the near future. This data impelled CFSAN leadership to prioritize the task of preparing their organization for the future. A high-level task force was appointed to study the situation and come up with concrete recommendations for a credible succession plan. After a year of investigation and with strong commitment from the entire organization, CFSAN created a Leadership Legacy Steering Committee. This group became responsible for designing a leadership development program that accounted for the needed skill sets and demographic reality of the Center’s workforce.

Rather than starting at the top (as is more typical), CFSAN began training first-line supervisors in the art and skills of leading people. Not only did this decision address the greatest need, it also signaled to more junior employees that they mattered and that this initiative was not just another perk for top management. As well as a solid training component, the program features mentoring and shadowing opportunities with senior leaders, promoting deeper intergenerational relationships and increasing the transfer of vital institutional knowledge. In addition, participants have opportunities for developmental assignments in different units and special team projects, both of which enhance collaborative relationships across Center departments.

The second level, for middle managers, which began last year, is aimed at emerging leaders who demonstrate the savvy and potential to lead at an organizational level. The third level focuses on senior managers and will emphasize strategic leadership skills.

CFSAN is accomplishing this effort despite severe budget cuts and increasing workloads. The organization continues to be led by Baby Boomer administrators who have committed to securing the future of the organization. They recognize that the best hope for ongoing success will come from younger employees who are motivated to take on larger responsibilities and feel empowered by the earnest attention paid to their development.

History’s Promise: Intergenerational Collaboration?

Historical trends show that major secular crises recur every 80 years or so, the last one beginning with the Great Depression in 1928. The leadership combination of an elder Prophet generation, providing vision and a strong moral compass, together with a mid-life Nomad generation, fortified with sturdy persistence and expertise, was ideally suited for enduring the crisis and forging a new order. The Prophet and Nomad generations of that time were able to face the extreme difficulty through collaboration and generational cooperation. Their leaders found the courage to tell the truth, call forth needed sacrifice, and provide the hope that led the nation through the ordeal.

The challenges that face the nation’s institutions and communities today are deeply complex. No single generation can adequately address these issues without the cooperation and contributions of the others. The best hope for the future of our organizations and our culture rests on our capacity to form a shared vision that encompasses the best of what each generation values and has to offer. Whether Boomers and Xers can overcome the self-serving biases and limiting mental models that keep the two generations from collaborating for the future is unknown. It may require that external conditions worsen so that the stakes become higher. And perhaps the young Millennials — in seeking clear direction and oversight from leadership — will call the others to task, necessitating Boomers and Xers to come together to effectively lead this emboldened and demographically powerful workforce.

We have seen the systemic opportunities that can come from collaboration in communities, businesses, government offices, and nonprofits. By seeking to build the intergenerational connections that will lead to shared understanding, knowledge, and vision, we can elevate the potential of our organizations by harnessing the natural balancing forces inherent within the generational mix. This process, however, starts with a leader’s willingness to ask important questions about the future, questions that seek to understand the complexity and truth arising from diverse perspectives. In this way, the path forward will be much clearer and the solutions more promising.

Deborah Gilburg is a principle of Gilburg Leadership Institute, a leadership development firm specializing in generational dynamics and organizational succession planning. For more information, visit www.gilburgleadership.com. Deb will be presenting a concurrent session at this year’s Pegasus Conference.

The post Empowering Multigenerational Collaboration in the Workplace appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

This process usually begins with the CEO. Pressured by shareholders’ demands or analysts’ expectations, top executives sacrifice their personal lives by working 70-hour work weeks. At the same time, they demand that everyone in the organization do the same, pressuring them to produce more with fewer resources. However, results do not necessarily follow. Instead, tension increases, and commitment, energy, and creativity all decline.

Executives justify sacrificing their souls because they believe that everything is secondary to the bottom line. However, this assumption is based on the erroneous belief that people need to work harder in order to produce better outcomes. This is not true. Working harder tends to produce more—but of the same. If companies want to increase their competitiveness, they need to constantly create new products and services, new strategies, new processes, and often a new organizational culture. As the cliché goes, they need to work smarter, not harder.

Feeding the Soul

But current working conditions don’t support working smarter. According to quality pioneer Edward Deming, our prevailing system of management is based on fear. Fear of failure, fear of being embarrassed, fear of not getting a promotion, or fear of getting fired. Fear is the dominant emotion—the main source of energy and the impetus to action.

But when human beings are in a state of fear, do they behave in innovative or habitual ways? Habitual, of course! When we’re afraid, we almost always revert to our most ingrained patterns of behavior. In fact, brain physiologists explain that the primitive part of the brain takes over—the limbic system, where our “fight or flight” programming resides.

Why does management by fear still persist? Most organizations are still designed based on what Douglas McGregor termed “Theory X”—the idea that employees are unreliable and uncommitted, and work merely to earn a paycheck. From this perspective, people need to be bullied or frightened into acting on behalf of the organization. “Theory Y,” however, offers another possibility—that employees are responsible adults who want to make a contribution. Based on this alternative mindset, it is possible to consider aspiration as a source of action—one that is far more effective than desperation ever could be.

Businesses can learn a lot from sports and the arts in this regard. Ask an athlete what usually happens when she mentally repeats “Can’t miss” or “Can’t fail” before or during a performance versus repeating “I’ll make it” or “I’ll get it.” Thinking about what you want to create works much better than thinking about what you want to avoid. Picasso pointed out that if you trace the history of any great piece of art, the crucial moment in its development inevitably came when the artist had the vision of what needed to be created. Why would business be different? Being able to articulate what deeply matters to us is a powerful source of energy. As the old saying goes, “Dreams feed the soul.”

Accessing the Soul

Visualizing what we want to create doesn’t mean escaping reality; it means being present in a new way. The martial arts offer an excellent example of handling challenges from a posture of creativity rather than fear. The essence of disciplines such as karate and aikido is to develop a capacity to be more and more quiet, centered, and relaxed in dangerous situations. Martial artists know that, by doing so, they can produce outstanding results.

During the last several years, the Society for Organizational Learning has sponsored a research project involving interviews with more than 150 leading scientists, artists, and government, business, and religious leaders. One of the conclusions reached by the researchers has been that the internal place from which a leader operates matters; in other words, the quality of consciousness determines the quality of performance.

If these ideas seem too abstract, take a moment to reflect on the best decisions you have made in your life, professionally or personally. Now remember where you were when you made those decisions. Were you in the office, feeling stressed or desperately grasping for an answer to your problems? Or were you taking a shower, driving quietly, or observing your kids? I wager it was the latter.

When Leonardo da Vinci was painting “The Last Supper,” the church commissioner was impatient for the painting to be completed and complained to the Duke that Leonardo occasionally took long breaks from his work. The commissioner argued, “If a gardener doesn’t take his hands off his scissors during the whole day, why does [da Vinci] need to leave his paintbrush?” But Leonardo understood that he needed incubation periods, away from the work, in order to produce his best. With humor, he replied to the Duke, “Great geniuses sometimes work better when they work less.”

Different fields of knowledge have alternative explanations for this phenomenon. Psychologists would say that our unconscious mind processes information, in quantity and speed, thousands and thousands of times more effectively than our conscious mind. When we turn off our conscious mind, we let the unconscious mind work better and the answer suddenly comes to us. Spiritual leaders would say that, in silencing our mind, we access our soul, which is our full potential and knows all.

Connecting Souls

Although individual performances are important, companies increasingly rely on decisions and actions taken by teams. Here, again, businesses can take lessons from the world of sports. High-performing sports teams sometimes find themselves “in the zone,” where they experience peak performance. Bill Russell, the star center of the 11-time world champion Boston Celtics, spoke of those special times:, “Every so often a Celtic game would heat up so that it became more than a physical or even a mental game, and would be magical. That feeling is very difficult to describe, and I certainly never talked about it when I was playing. When it happened, I could feel my play rise to a new level. It came rarely, and would last anywhere from five minutes to a whole quarter or more. … It would surround not only me and the other Celtics, but also the players on the other team, even the referees.”

In researching all kinds of high-performing teams—heart surgeons, firefighters, astronauts, trial lawyers, business teams, and others—Carl Larson of the University of Denver found the same phenomenon reported in different terms: the atmosphere of the room becomes “super-charged”; there seems to be a “group mind” or “collective wisdom”; team members experience the sensation of being “a conscious part of even a more conscious whole” and feel a “luminous transparency” between all the participants. David Bohm, the famous quantum physicist, once explained this experience to consultant Joseph Jaworski as “a single intelligence that works with people who are moving in a relationship with one another.”

If you want scientific proof that this “single mind” could exist, consider the experiment by Mexican neurophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum. Two people meditated together for a period of 20 minutes, aiming to feel each other’s presence. They then entered separate Faraday chambers (metallic enclosures that block all electromagnetic signals) while attempting to maintain their direct communication. One of the subjects was shown a flash of light that produced electrophysiological responses; the responses were measured by a machine. In about one in four cases, although no electromagnetic signals could have been transmitted between the two subjects, the brain of the person who hadn’t been exposed to the light showed electrical activity quite similar to that displayed in the first subject.

In my work as consultant, I have seen several groups experience this special kind of connection. Most of the time, the precipitating factor was that people talked openly and listened deeply—or, as I prefer to say, talked and listened from the heart. And as many ancient cultures believed, the heart leads directly to the soul.

Stop Giving Up, Start Using It

In modern society, we take for granted the existence of gravitational and magnetic fields. Executives and managers must also learn to recognize that every company produces its particular social field, created by people’s thoughts and emotions, relationships, and the organization’s physical space. This field is an invisible but powerful force that influences the quality of shortand long-term performance.

Giving up your soul doesn’t create a promising field and it doesn’t produce the best possible results, even over the short run. The alternative strategy: Start really using your soul—feeding, accessing, and connecting. By doing so, you will produce much better outcomes in all senses—financial and material, but also physical and spiritual. As Joseph Jaworski says, “Anyone who walks into a locker room of a championship team can feel the energy, the excitement, the mutual trust and the extraordinary sense of the possible.” Why can’t you feel the same when entering your office? It can be this way, as long as you bring your soul along for the ride.

Tácito Nobre is a senior consultant with Axialent (www.axialent.com).

The post Giving Up Your Soul Is Bad Business appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Innu Salon in Austin, Texas, is one such business., “Innu” is a Greek word that means “pillar.” Co-owners and marriage partners Ron Fredericks and Tiffany Rasco say, “That’s what we want to be—not just makers of money, but pillars in our community. We’re eager to add benefit for causes we believe in. We don’t want to come to the end of our career and ask why we did this—was it only for money?” Fredericks and Rasco recognize that, to achieve this goal, they must work with employees to build a sustainable business.

To that end, Fredericks has developed a powerful process to ensure that learning is continuous and incremental (see “Design for Sustainable Success”). “That way,” he says, “we don’t get surprised with a new trend and then have stress and anxiety trying to play catch up. We’re predicting the trends all along.” Here’s how the Innu approach works.

The Trend Report

Unlike in much of the fashion industry, Innu stylists are salaried and receive benefits. One of the most important benefits is a two-hour education session every Thursday morning. The shop remains closed while the stylists focus on learning and staying on the leading edge of their profession.

During six to eight of these sessions each year, stylists develop what they call a “Trend Report.” Doing so keeps them focused, challenged, and inspired. It helps them build their technical and communication skills. Additionally, compiling the Trend Report serves as an education for young employees and an energizer for the more experienced.

The point of the report is:

1. To forecast the shape, texture, color, and mood of the next trend in hair design.
2. To inspire and educate stylists and clients.
3. To bring theory and creativity to life.

The Trend Report for Fall 2002 includes a spare nine lines of text, along with photos of up-and-coming hairstyles and an explanation of the styling process for each. This format keeps the learnings simple and easy to remember. The stylists summarized the rising trends this year as:

1. More geometric hairstyles
2. Bolder use of color and contrasting colors
3. Subtle use of asymmetry in weight distribution and design line
4. Strong design elements balanced with softer ones, for instance:
• A strong undercut may have softer overlapping layers on top
• A heavy bang might be balanced with layers
• A strong perimeter can be coupled with a softer interior
5. A fashion-forward client will be wearing these looks as early as this fall. The masses, however, will become com fortable with these elements next year or later. (Translation: Relax, you have time to learn this. We’re ahead of the curve.)

According to the stylists and owners, they arrive at such simplicity in the following ways:

1. We scour haute couture magazines and any other sources we can get our hands on.
2. We compile and categorize the strongest fashion-forward images.
3. We compare/contrast these images with trends from the preceding seasons, discerning a direction or development in the trend.
4. We brainstorm words and vocabulary to describe the images and trend.
5. Each stylist draws his or her own version of the trend on two-dimensional headsheets.
6. Using a mannequin head, each stylist then creates the look in three dimensions.
7. The report culminates with models and a photo shoot.

DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABLE SUCCESS



At Innu Salon, a commitment to employee learning creates a virtuous cycle of sustainable business success. Skillful and motivated employees provide high levels of customer satisfaction. Satisfied customers tell their friends about the salon. Financial success in turn reinforces the commitment to employee development.

8. The images and information are sent out to local and national media. The Trend Report is also made available to our clients.

“Invigorating, inspiring, and fulfilling are words that the stylists have used to describe the Trend Report. They say it is their favorite part of the year because it keeps them focused and confident,” Fredericks and Rasco say. “Throughout the year, it’s satisfying to see the stylists looking through couture magazines and proudly pointing out that their hairstyle forecast is holding true.”

Feedback from clients about the Trend Report is also positive. They say that they appreciate that their hair is in the hands of professionals who are forward-thinking and continually willing to improve their artistic and technical skills. The consistency of education within the salon helps make customers comfortable with trying different stylists if their regular stylist is booked or away. Innu’s business process virtually guarantees that clients will have a good experience.

In business for only three years, Innu has greatly benefited from word of-mouth advertising from satisfied customers. The salon is already sought out for editorial work, fashion shows, fundraisers, and beauty-school classes. The national magazine Healing retreats and Spas featured Innu as “the best in Austin.” A local newspaper has also written favorable feature stories, as has Push magazine. The latest recognition came from a local TV station, which solicited the salon to do televised makeovers on the morning news show.

Lessons for Other Businesses

If you think this article is about hair, think again. It’s about business and business leaders. Leaders who know that their most valuable asset is human capacity. Leaders who develop and follow a continuous process for identifying and linking trends from outside the company’s walls with inside potential. In this way, the natural peaks and valleys that all organizations face do not deplete people’s energy. Instead, the business and its employees continue to grow slowly and incrementally, even in the face of a sluggish economy and other challenges.

What lessons might other organizations take from Innu’s example?

• Organizations are fueled largely by the brainpower of the people within them.
• Engaging all employees as equals in a process for continuous learning and change energizes the organization. In Margaret Wheatley’s words, “Information nourishes a system.”
• Employees don’t have to be experts in research and development to scan the environment for trends. All they need is encouragement, safe space for learning, and an effective process.
• , “A rising tide catches all boats”—by engaging in the data-gathering and analysis process, employees improve their individual skills and their organization’s overall reputation and capacity.
• Recognition from the outside world for the way the business operates can further energize the organization.

A process like the one described here works best when the leaders have humility—that is, their intent is pure and they strive to be authentic, neither less than nor more than they are. In this environment of honoring themselves and others for the unique value each brings, people learn and thrive because no one has to spend energy trying to please someone else. They are safe to be themselves.

At Innu Salon, the constant is the process. The variable is the change wrought by new learning. Balancing the two releases ongoing creative energy. Innu is an example of knowledge creation at its finest.

The post Lessons from the “Cutting Edge” appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Senior staff talked about the need for change and actually learned new skills such as how to make more reliable commitments, but they had an uncomfortable feeling that they were not addressing the really critical issues.

This situation is all too common in organizational life:

• We have noble aspirations for what we want to achieve.
• The costs of conducting business as usual are high and growing.
• We make changes that should work but don’t seem to get at the core issues.
• We can’t get traction on making the most important changes.

It raises two questions:

1. Why do1people persist in making seemingly superficial changes?
2. What would motivate them to make the changes that would best enable them to accomplish what they want?

We’ll answer both in turn.

A Perfectly Designed System

One of the premises of systems thinking is that systems are perfectly designed to achieve the results they are producing. At first glance, when we look at how dysfunctional our existing systems can be, this premise seems absurd. For example, why would people create a system that produces low-quality products delivered late at the expense of their own personal health and well-being?

However, on closer observation the premise leads to some important insights:

1. People experience payoffs from the system as it is currently designed.

For example, the senior managers of the medical informatics group came to recognize that the existing system acknowledged them for their ambitious vision and commitment, motivated them to work hard in service of this vision, and averted the need to challenge their clients’ own unrealistic expectations.

2. One of the most common payoffs is that the current system allows people to avoid “paying the price” of changing their behavior.

For example, for the senior managers of the medical informatics group, many of whom are doctors themselves, making more reliable commitments would require them to plan their work more carefully. However, the physicians in charge did not have strong planning skills. Developing these skills would have required them to acknowledge their weakness in this area and take time away from delivering on their current commitments.

In addition to evading paying the price of change, there are several other typical benefits to conducting business as usual. These include:

3. The solutions that people have employed so far work well enough in the short term.

For example, when the senior managers in the medical informatics group make promises to their clients, the very act of making a commitment temporarily removes external pressure from them to perform. Because they are people of high integrity, they believe that their commitment means that they will deliver the result. Moreover, they experience the act of making a promise as motivation to work as hard as they can to succeed.

4. These short-term benefits reinforce the belief that people are doing the best they can. They do not have to consider the longer-term consequences of their actions that often undermine their effectiveness.

For example, the medical informatics managers take comfort in the belief that their noble aspiration, innate intelligence, and hard work are sufficient to achieve their vision. Belief in the power of one’s passion and persistence is perfectly understandable, even though these qualities might be necessary but not sufficient to achieve great results. The managers fail to recognize that making commitments without realistically thinking through the time, resources, and focus required to be successful is a quick fix that leads over time to delivery shortfalls, quality problems, and reduced credibility with clients.

5. The short-term benefits people experience tend to meet normal human needs for competence and acknowledgement of their good intentions and effort. Experiencing these immediate payoffs also enables people to blind themselves to their responsibility for subsequent problems with execution. Rather than take ownership for these problems, they convince themselves that they are doing the best they can and others are to blame when things do not work out as expected over time.

For example, the medical informatics group prides itself on working extremely hard to achieve a significant vision, and staff members can easily point to external obstacles, such as the corporate culture or clients’ unrealistic expectations, as preventing them from being as successful as they could be.

“Cost Benefit Analysis of Change vs. No Change” can help people expand their awareness of the benefits and costs involved in changing. It helps people explicate not only the more obvious benefits of changing and costs of not changing, but also the frequently hidden benefits of not changing and costs of changing.

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CHANGE VS. NO CHANGE

In order for change to occur, the product of cells 1 and 2 must exceed the product of cells 3 and 4.

Five Steps to Achieving More of What You Want

There are five steps you can take to increase your ability to achieve more of what you really want:

1. Reinforce the case for the desired outcome, i.e., make your vision (the benefits of changing) and costs of not changing as visceral as possible.

2. Acknowledge that the status quo, however overtly dysfunctional, also produces benefits you value.

3. Clarify how your current actions actually undermine the vision you want to achieve. Systems maps can assist this process by tracing the long-term unintended negative consequences of people’s well-intentioned behavior. Illuminating these consequences:

• Reduces your attachment to your current behavior and the accompanying benefits of maintaining the status quo;
• Increases the perceived costs of not changing because you can now see how your actions lead to worse rather than better performance.

4. Look for ways to achieve the benefits of both the status quo and the desired state. It makes sense to look for both/and solutions that maximize benefits of both the status quo and the desired state, and to implement these solutions where they exist. However, given a system’s tendencies toward better before-worse behavior (i.e., “there’s no free lunch”) and worse-before-better behavior (i.e., “pain before gain” or the need to make upfront investments for long-term success), finding these both/and solutions is not so easy.

5. Choose consciously. Where tradeoffs between short and long-term payoffs are required, you need to make a deliberate choice in favor of those actions that are likely to produce the longer-term result you say you really want. Alternatively, you can accept that the benefits of the status quo are more important than your espoused vision—and consciously choose to maintain the status quo.

David Peter Stroh (dstroh@bridgewaypartners.com) is a founder and principal of Bridgeway Partners and an expert in applying systems thinking to organizational and social change.

The post Exposing the Hidden Benefits of Business As Usual: Why the Status Quo is So Difficult to Change appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The Destructive Impact of Command and Control

The dominance of command and control is having devastating impacts. There has been a dramatic increase in worker disengagement; few organizations are succeeding at solving problems; and leaders are being scapegoated and fired.

Most people associate command and control leadership with the military. Years ago, I worked for the U. S. Army Chief of Staff. I, like most people, thought I’d see command and control leadership there. The great irony is that the military learned long ago that, if you want to win, you have to engage the intelligence of everyone involved in the battle. The Army had a visual reminder of this when, years ago, they developed new tanks and armored vehicles that traveled at unprecedented speeds of 50 miles an hour. When first used in battle during the first Gulf War, several times troops took off on their own, speeding across the desert at high speed. However, according to Army doctrine, tanks and armored vehicles must be accompanied by a third vehicle that literally is called the Command and Control Vehicle. This vehicle could only travel at 20 miles an hour. (They corrected this problem.)

For me, this is a familiar image people in the organization ready and willing to do good work, wanting to contribute their ideas, and ready to take responsibility, and leaders holding them back, insisting that they wait for decisions or instructions. The result is dispirited employees and leaders wondering why no one takes responsibility or gets engaged anymore. In these troubled, uncertain times, we don’t need more command and control; we need better means to engage everyone’s intelligence in solving challenges and crises as they arise.

We Know How to Create Smart, Resilient Organizations

We do know how to create workplaces that are flexible, smart, and resilient. We have known for more than half a century that engaging people and relying on self-managed teams is far more productive than any other form of organizing. In fact, productivity gains in self-managed work environments are at minimum 35 percent higher than in traditionally managed organizations. And workers know this to be true when they insist that they can make smarter decisions than those delivered from on high.

With so much evidence supporting the benefits of participation, why isn’t every organization using self-managed teams to cope with turbulence? Instead, organizations increasingly are cluttered with control mechanisms that paralyze employees and leaders alike. Where have all these policies, procedures, protocols, laws, and regulations come from? And why do we keep creating more, even as we suffer from the terrible consequences of over-control?

Even though worker capacity and motivation are destroyed when leaders choose power over productivity, it appears that bosses would rather be in control than have the organization work well. And this drive for power is supported by the belief that the higher the risk, the more necessary it is to hold power tightly. What’s so dangerous about this belief is that just the opposite is true. Successful organizations, including the military, have learned that the higher the risk, the more necessary it is to engage everyone’s commitment and intelligence. When leaders hold onto power and refuse to distribute decision-making, they create slow, unwieldy, Byzantine systems that only increase risk and irresponsibility. We never effectively control people or situations by these means; we only succeed in preventing intelligent, fast responses.

The personal impact on leaders’ morale and health is also devastating. When leaders take back power, when they act as heroes and saviors, they end up exhausted, overwhelmed, and deeply stressed. It is simply not possible to solve single handedly the organization’s problems there are just too many of them! One leader who led a high-risk chemical plant spent three years creating a highly motivated, self-organizing workforce. He described it this way: “Instead of just me worrying about the plant, I now have nine hundred people worrying. And coming up with solutions I never could have imagined.”

Sometimes leaders fail to involve staff out of some warped notion of kindness. They don’t include people or share their worries because they don’t want to add to their stress. But such well-meaning leaders only create more problems. When leaders fail to engage people in finding solutions to problems that affect them, staff don’t thank the leader for not sharing the burden. Instead, they withdraw, criticize, worry, and gossip. They interpret the leader’s exercise of power as a sign that he or she doesn’t trust them or their capacities.

Assessing Changes in Your Leadership

With no time to reflect on how they might be changing, with no time to contemplate whether their present leadership is creating an effective and resilient organization, too many leaders drift into command and control, wondering why nothing seems to be working, angry that no one seems motivated any more. If you are feeling stressed and pressured, please know that this is how most leaders feel these days. Yet it is important that you take time to notice how your own leadership style has changed in response to the pressures of this uncertain time. Otherwise, you may end up disappointed and frustrated, leaving a legacy of failure rather than of real results.

Some Questions to Think About

Here are questions to help you notice if your leadership is slipping into command and control mode. If you feel courageous, circulate these questions and talk about them with staff.

1. What’s changed in the way you make decisions? Have you come to rely on the same group of advisors? Do you try to engage those who have a stake in the decision?
2. What’s happening to staff motivation? How does it compare to a few years ago?
3. How often do you find yourself invoking rules, policies, or regulations to get staff to do something?
4. How often do you respond to a problem by developing a new policy?
5. What information are you no longer sharing with staff? Where are you more transparent?
6. What’s the level of trust in your organization right now? How does this compare to two to three years ago?
7. When people make mistakes, what happens? Are staff encouraged to learn from their experience? Or is there a search for someone to blame?
8. What’s the level of risk-taking in the organization? How does this compare to two to three years ago?
9. How often have you reorganized in the past few years? What have you learned from that?
10. How’s your personal energy and motivation these days? How does this compare to a few years ago?

The post How Is Your Leadership Changing? appeared first on The Systems Thinker.