The question that stands before us now is not who can take part in the cultural transformation needed to address these complex problems, but how shall we stand together to do so? Will we simply try to fix the problems we now face with the same mindsets that created them or will we learn to be together in new ways?

Fortunately, every person can participate in and contribute to the creation of a new global ethos of partnership and peace. In fact, we do so each time we choose:

• discernment instead of judgment
• appreciation over criticism
• generosity in place of self-interest
• reconciliation over retaliation

A culture of partnership is one that supports our full humanity and helps us reach our highest human potential. Whether we build this culture depends on the choices we make, from the seemingly insignificant to the most exalted. By understanding our options, we can make wise decisions.

Reframing the Conversation

Through two decades of research, Riane Eisler (one of the authors of this article) found a fundamental difference in how human societies evolved (for a detailed discussion, see The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future, Harper Collins Publishing, 1987). She documented that, from the beginning, some cultures oriented more to what she termed a dominator system and others to a partnership system — and that gender roles and relations are structured very differently in each (see “Dominator-Partnership Continuum” on p. 10). In dominator systems, social ranking begins with our most fundamental human difference—the difference between female and male. The male and what is stereotypically considered masculine is valued over the female and the stereotypically feminine. This foundational ranking of one gender over the other sets in place a pattern of social rankings based on other differences, such as ethnicity, race, religion, and so on.

In partnership systems, societies value both halves of humanity equally and recognize that humans are social animals with a unique wisdom and capacity to work and live together. Here, stereotypically feminine traits and activities such as caring, nonviolence, and caregiving are highly valued — whether they reside in women or men. This orientation profoundly affects the society’s guiding system of values in all institutions, including business, government, and economics. For example, using the lenses of these social categories makes it possible to see that caring for people, starting in childhood, and for the Earth are important in human and environmental terms.

Toward the dominator end of the spectrum, social systems organize relationships at all levels according to a hierarchy of control, status, and privilege. They routinely extend rights and freedoms to those on top and deny them to those on the bottom. Such rankings lead to thinking limited to two dimensions: superior or inferior; dominating or dominated. Since there is no awareness of the partnership alternative, both parties live in fear. Those on top fear loss of power and control while those on the bottom perpetually seek to gain it. This ranking structure then leads to conflicts — sometimes over trivial issues — that escalate, often leading to cycles of violence, resentment, and retaliation. Such conditions do not generally contribute to growth, learning, or peace.

Social systems toward the partnership end of the spectrum are characterized by more egalitarian organizational structures in which both genders are seen as equal yet different, each capable of unique manifestations of value. A hierarchy of roles may exist, but delegation tends to be based on competency, rather than rankings by gender or other arbitrary groupings. Each group is capable of appreciating the unique value of the other. Differences are seen as opportunities for learning, and both individuals and groups organize through mutual accountability and individual responsibility. Empowerment stems from one’s unique contributions, and connections are made at the level of values, rather than by gender, ethnicity, and other social categories.

In her most recent book, The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics (Berrett-Koehler, 2007), Riane provides extensive evidence of how caring business policies that result from partnership values are actually more profitable than those that stem from dominator values. Economists tell us that building “high-quality human capital” is essential for the postindustrial, knowledge economy. Nations that invest in caring for children are doing just that—while those that do not will dearly pay for this failure.

Learning Conversations

In a global society, we see all shades in the spectrum between dominator and partnership systems. But the necessity to make headway on our intractable challenges requires that we accelerate the movement toward the partnership side of the continuum. A simple way to contribute to designing the future we desire is conversation. Conversation costs nothing but time and can include everyone. Conversations are one of the cornerstones of civic engagement. For millennia, they have served as a means to explore, defend, persuade, connect, and heal. Conversations become the threads of the social fabric of our lives, contributing to communal beliefs, expectations, and judgments about the structures and relationships underlying our families, tribes, communities, institutions, and nations. Conversations are so powerful that in an effort to control their subjects, despots and dictators often limit what topics can be discussed and how or if conversations are allowed.

DOMINATOR-PARTNERSHIP CONTINUUM

The necessity to make headway on our intractable challenges requires that we accelerate the movement toward the partnership side of the continuum.

Modern social science and psychological research has found that the what and how of conversations often lead to defining moments. The what of conversations are the topics we choose to discuss, and the how includes ideas for holding conversations from which we can learn and grow, rather than persuade, coerce, or intimidate. The purpose of holding conversations about our fundamental differences is, therefore, not to blame or judge each other or ourselves. Conversations are held in order to learn what still binds us to the dominator dynamic and to allow us to see each other and our world more clearly.

To understand what divides us, we must look honestly and earnestly at our differences. We must make an effort to understand the other’s point of view and to share our own. The best way to have a powerful conversation about what separates us is to simply listen, become aware of the meaning we may be making for ourselves from what we hear, and recognize that what the other person is saying is true for her or him.

At first, it may be difficult to hold neutral conversations due to the learned meanings we draw from words, phrases, and even tone of voice. Even if you hold your heart for humanity deeply, you are likely to carry some biases based on the tacit meanings that come from your experiences in life related to your own gender. To truly understand the other, you will want to consider what it is like to be in the other’s shoes, to have their beliefs, points of view, and experiences. The “Learning Practice of Leadership” may serve as a helpful reminder for how we can lead ourselves through the controversial waters of gender conversations (see “Learning Practice of Leadership” on p. 11).

Tips for Partnership Conversations

Below are tips for holding partnership conversations and some sample questions to get you started. These tools will be particularly useful in dealing with emotionally charged issues.

1. Convene the conversation in circle so that everyone holds an equal position.
2. Take time to allow people to get settled and leave their work and other concerns behind. Prepare a question that allows people to get introduced and learn a little about why they have joined this conversation.
3. Allow each person to speak when they are ready. There is no need to pressure anyone to talk. People will learn both from listening and speaking.
4. Allow each person who wishes to speak adequate time to do so without interruption.
5. Select a question to start the gender conversation. Several are included in the bulleted list below.
6. As you explore the conversation more deeply, use open questions. Open questions are questions to which there is no “yes” or “no” answer. They are not intended to lead to a specific outcome. Open questions come from a genuine place of curiosity. They often begin with words like “how,”, “what,” “when,” and “why.”
7. Be mindful of your intention when asking any question. If you have a judgment behind your question, it will likely show through., “Why” questions are particularly tricky as they sometimes sound accusatory, such as “Why do you believe that?”
8. Be transparent by stating your personal experiences in relating a position or asking a question.
9. Listen and try to put your judgments aside.
10. Resist the temptation to voice either your own affirmation or your disagreement with another person’s point of view. Allow each speaker to be accountable for their own words.
11. If you find you are having a strong reaction to someone’s comment, good or bad, make a note for later reflection. Ask yourself, what is creating this reaction?
12. In these conversations, it is not important to convince or draw conclusions, but to listen and learn. Have something to write on. Jot down what you notice. And when time allows, journal about what you notice about what you notice. See where a deeper inquiry leads without trying to find the “right answer.”
13. When the conversation has concluded, take time to record notes about what you’ve learned.
14. Reflect on new questions you may have as result of the conversation and new options for relating with others.

Examples: Gender Topic Questions

• What is the first memory you recall in which gender played an important role?
• What happened?
• Do you recall any conclusions you may have drawn as a result of this experience?
• Did the experience make you feel more satisfied to be your gender or less? More empowered or less?
• How do people in your church, work, or community express gender equality and gender rankings?
• What evidence do you find that men are more valued than women?
• What evidence do you find that women are more valued than men?
• What do males and females have in common when it comes to personal values?
• What do you believe about the expression of gender in living species that influences your attitudes about gender differences in humans?
• Think of a major historical event in your lifetime. If you were a different gender, how would your interpretation of that event be changed?
• How do the perceptions we hold about gender influence our attitudes toward power and money?
• What would be different if you had been born a different sex?
• How would the sexes have to change to live more closely aligned with the partnership model?
• What would be the impact to government, business, and other social systems?

Not Just a “Women’s Issue”

Exploring the issues that divide us by examining how we are influenced by our experience of gender can be powerful. It may lead to further inquiry to uncover how gender differences impact your family, community, work, and institutional relationships. In turn, these explorations may give rise to questions about how culture and nations impact each other through our policies, markets, and impact on the planet.

Beginning with our most fundamental human difference, the difference between male and female, it is now time to understand deeply how our gender privileges, limitations, and experiences have shaped and continue to influence us, not only as individual women and men but as members of a world that has inherited a system of values that is heavily influenced by dominator valuations.

One of the most interesting, and important, outcomes of open-ended conversations about gender is a new understanding of what it means to be human for both women and men — and that gender is not “just a women’s issue” but is a key issue for whether we move to a more peaceful and equitable world. As more of us talk openly about these matters, we become participants in the cultural transformation from domination to partnership — not only in gender relations but in all relations. We also help create more effective, humane, and sustainable business practices and government policies when we bring these unconscious impediments out into the open.

Note: References to behavior resulting from the ranking and hierarchy of roles in dominator and partnership systems were adapted from the work of Virginia Satir and the Satir Institute of the Pacific.

Riane Eisler is a social scientist, attorney, consultant, and author best known for her bestseller The Chalice and The Blade: Our History, Our Future, now published in 23 languages. Her newest book, The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics, hailed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu as “a template for the better world we have been so urgently seeking” and by Peter Senge as “desperately needed,” proposes a new paradigm for economic systems. Riane keynotes at conferences worldwide, teaches transformative leadership at the California Institute of Integral Studies, and is president of the Center for Partnership Studies (www.partnershipway.org).

Lucy E. Garrick is an organizational leadership consultant, speaker, artist, and founder of Million Ideas for Peace, a public project designed to help individuals connect their personal and social passions to peacemaking (www.millionideas4peace.com). Lucy consults with corporations, nonprofits, government agencies, and public groups to improve individual and group leadership and performance. She holds a masters degree in Whole Systems Design, is chair of the OSR Alumni Association board of directors, and is principle consultant at NorthShore Consulting Group in Seattle, WA (www.northshoregroup.net).

The post Leading the Shift from a Dominator to a Partnership Culture appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

MANAGING BY MEANSOR RESULTS

Companies that take this approach are practicing “management by means” (MBM). That is, they design production systems according to precepts that guide all living systems, including:

• self-organization, particularly an ability to identify “self by local rather than central control,
• an emphasis on the relationships among all parts of the organization, and
• the generation of diversity.

Managing by means contrasts sharply with the approach that most businesses follow, called “managing by results” (MBR). With MBR, firms use centralized decision-making to establish abstract quantitative targets for each part of the organization (for instance, “We’ll crank out 250 red widgets on this production line every hour, with zero flaws”). Moreover, decision-makers at these organizations attempt to control the company’s various parts as if the whole thing were a machine (see “Managing by Means or Results?”). Typical MBR control structures include:

• activity-based costing (ABC)
• activity-based management (ABM)
• performance measures to motivate individuals or teams, and
• material requirements planning (MRP) to control operations.

Compared to practices shaped by conventional cost-management thinking, management by means generates far less waste, higher efficiency, lower overhead costs, and more diverse outputs — all the qualities you find in natural, organic processes. In fact, if we look at a living ecosystem — a forest, for example — we see startling efficiency and diversity. Each part of every tree, such as the root system, consumes only the resources it needs to perform its function; in this case, delivering water and nutrients to the rest of the tree. Whatever waste is created, such as the oxygen that results from photosynthesis, is used by other systems connected to the tree within the same ecosystem. So, humans and animals take in the oxygen that trees produce as waste. And throughout evolution, nature has generated virtually unlimited varieties of shapes, sizes, colors, and textures in trees as well as in other living systems.

What does MBM look like in a business setting? Let’s take a closer look at one of the living-system principles that guide MBM — “local control” — to find out. Organizational learning expert Peter Seng explains local control by using a simple analogy: If you cut your finger, your body does not send messages to your brain for permission to act. Rather, your circulatory system generates coagulants near the injury, which flow immediately to the cut. Likewise, at Toyota, everyone who stamps, welds, paints, and assembles cars is guided not by a centralized scheduling system but by one aim: to meet the needs of their direct “customer” the person to whom their work flows next. Materials move smoothly from person to person, with minimal waste. And if workers encounter a problem, they immediately signal for consultation and assistance, never allowing a defect to pass on to the next worker.

MBM can pay big dividends for companies that adopt it. Consider Toyota’s experience: Since 1960, the company has never had a loss year, nor has it ever teetered on the brink of bankruptcy — unlike many of its competitors. Moreover, market capitalization data reveal that Toyota’s market value rivals — and sometimes surpasses — that of the American “Big Three” auto makers combined.

Clearly, MBM offers important advantages over MBR. Yet, most companies continue to organize work according to MBR principles. Why?

The Big Lie

Companies that use MBR have bought into the “big lie” a simple assumption that sounds reasonable on the surface but that makes little sense when you look at how it actually plays out. This big lie is this: You can change the total cost or total profit of your organization by a certain amount by changing the costs or profits of the company’s parts by the e amount. In other words, because the total cost or profit of an organization presumably equals the sum of the costs or profits in parts, the total can be changed in any amount simply by changing its parts in the same amount.

Let’s take a closer look at that last point. This idea — that you can change the magnitude of the whole simply by changing parts in the same magnitude — is everywhere. Open any management accounting, finance, or economics textbook currently in use in MBA programs, and you’ll see this assumption implicit in any discussion about cost management. People actually believe that if they want their company to show an increase in profits of $1 billion, then all they have to do is cut $1 billion from somewhere in the firm. Perhaps they should sell off a division or outsource a major function. The idea is that, by treating the company’s parts as pieces that you can move in or out of the system like game pieces, you can influence the overall organization’s performance in absolutely predictable ways.

To be sure, you can do that with most machines. But with living systems — and human organizations are living systems — trying to optimize the whole by optimizing the parts only leads to declining performance. Still not convinced? Imagine a top-notch basketball team. Now think about what would happen if each player tried to optimize her individual performance by scoring as many baskets as possible during a game. What would happen to the team’s ability to function as a smoothly running, coordinated team? If you envisioned a chaotic mess easily bested by the opposing team, you understand the danger inherent in this assumption about optimizing parts of a natural system.

Where did this mechanistic way of treating human systems come from? In the West, the idea has a long history. Galileo, the 16th century Italian astronomer and physicist, first introduced the concept of separating the idea of motion from a moving object itself — and then measuring that motion. He came up with this idea as a way to address anomalies in moving objects that existing theories inherited from Aristotle couldn’t explain. After the 16th century, Westerners began trying to quantify everything. As Galileo’s thinking was further developed by Rene Descartes and then Isaac Newton, Westerners began seeing the world as a set of independent objects. They defined the characteristics of these objects by absolute measures and believed that it was only external force or impact, not embodied patterns in a web of relationships, that moved these objects.

When Actions Backfire

Today, management science still draws from the mechanistic worldview. But when you treat organizations as machines, you behave in ways that ultimately keep you from achieving your original goal of improving company performance to its full potential.

“Working Harder.” Companies that manage by means achieve a simplicity that lets each step in the production process move forward cheaply, quickly, and with high quality. But when you believe the big lie, you “work harder” in each of the organization’s parts in order to “improve” performance in the whole. What does working harder look like? To force better performance in each part of the organization, you create imbalances among parts and systemic delays that cause you to build an elaborate infrastructure — processes for scheduling, expediting, controlling, reworking, and so forth. In other words, you make things complicated.

Thus, companies that manage by results create complication, which clogs up the workflow with waste, delays, and high costs. This degree of complication gets costly in terms of the people and other resources required to run this infrastructure. Indeed, accountants call this cost “overhead” or “indirect cost.” In many companies, this cost amounts to as much as half of all the costs incurred by doing business.

Higher costs in turn prompt you to produce a smaller variety of products or services in an effort to control those costs. After all, it takes enormous energy and effort to create variety. Companies that emphasize MBR often try to do things as homogeneously as possible; that is, they resort to mass production in order to streamline costs and processes. But in an age of increasingly complex customer demands, mass production isn’t the kind of response that’s going to endear a company to its external customers.

Complication increases the time required for work to move from one destination to another. And when work does move from stage to stage, it progresses intermittently. It lurches along rather than flowing smoothly and effortlessly. Quality also suffers when things get complicated. If you define quality as giving customers what they want, when they want it, and how they want it, it’s hard to achieve all that when you’re grappling with a complicated order-delivery system.

All told, performance drops rather than improves with MBR. If we compare the costs and benefits of MBM and MBR, the differences between the two approaches are striking (see “The Advantages of MBM”).

Working Separately. The big lie also causes you to treat each part of the company as a separate entity. Departments arise in which people work independently of each other. Indeed, people in the various departments, or functional “chimneys,” may even feel indifferent to what folks do in other departments.

In such an arrangement, work comes together only through the vast array of infrastructures that have been created to collect and combine materials or information. Although people in the various departments may all be doing useful, valuable work, the system itself — the organization — doesn’t help the work flow from stage to stage in a smooth, continuous way.

The Big Truth

In truth, you can’t optimize a whole organization by trying to optimize its parts. That’s because in natural systems, the whole doesn’t equal the sum of its parts. We hear that phrase often — but what does it really mean for human organizations?

Because organizations represent an individual human system writ large, let’s see what happens when we compare the value of a whole human being with the value of his or her individual parts. If you disassembled a person into all the molecules that make him up and removed the water that constitutes most of any human being’s cells, what you’d have left wouldn’t weigh more than a few pounds. And, it wouldn’t be worth more than about 50 cents on any market. If you took things one step further and broke those few pounds of molecules into the atomic particles that make them up, you’d have a pile of “stuff” so tiny that you couldn’t even see it with the naked eye.

Now imagine doing something similar with a business. Picture adding up the value of all the separate parts of the business — the equipment, the supplies and inventory, the cash, the building, even the human beings who work there. The dollar amount that you come up with won’t be anywhere near the actual value of the organization when it’s working as a system — that is, when the relationships among all those parts are functioning. The value of the overall organization comes not from its various parts but from the way in which those parts interact. Thus, it is because of those relationships that the whole is worth far more than the sum of its individual components.

Moving from Managing by Results to Managing by Means

So how can your organization avoid the pitfalls inherent in MBR and reap the benefits offered by MBM? It’s not easy. You have to look at work through a radically different lens. Put another way, this change requires you to stop trying to identify better answers and instead ask a new question: What would your organization be like if it ran according to the principles that guide natural systems?

Here are three provocative ideas to get you started:

Nurture Relationships.

If you ran your organization according to natural systemic principles, you would stop trying to optimize performance in the company’s individual parts in order to improve the overall organization’s performance. Rather, you would try to improve the quality of the relationships among the parts.

THE ADVANTAGES OF MBM

For example, you might take steps to channel the flow of information and material into direct pathways between employees whose work interconnects. Ideally, each worker would hand material directly to the next worker in response to a signal from that worker. Where distance in space or time makes direct flow impossible at the moment, workers might use indirect signals, such as empty slots in a rack or order cards. But the goal should be to replace such tools with ways to make it easier for the “upstream” employee to see what the “downstream” employee (his or her “internal customer”) needs.

By having work follow standardized procedures as well as having it flow along direct pathways from worker to worker, you ensure that any problems that arise are visible to people as soon as they occur. This instant, widespread feedback lets people respond immediately to problems and play a direct role in their resolution. In addition, you would make sure that all material flowed at the rate demanded by the customer (whether internal or external). Work should not lurch from stage to stage at varying rates. When it does, the company needs places to store backlog and processes to keep track of it. Expenses start mounting. And whenever material and information come to a standstill, the delay reverberates all the way along the rest of the work path. It’s impossible to deliver quality — giving customers what they want, when they want it — under conditions of uneven or intermittent flow.

Management expert Dr. W. Edwards Deming emphasized the importance to quality of building proper relationships in organizations including always knowing how every customer connects with every worker. Deming suggested a powerful exercise to demonstrate where you need to clarify and strengthen relationships in your organization: Ask everyone to stand up and grab hold of the hand of the person who supplies them with whatever it is they need to do their work. Now ask them to take their other hand and grab hold of the person who needs something from them to get their work done. According to Deming, if your workforce can’t do that, your company is suffering from serious disconnection.

Another management visionary and poet, Judy Brown, offered a compelling image of the importance of relationships in MBM. Brown describes building a log fire. The flame comes from the logs, she agrees, but simply jamming logs together won’t generate a flame. To get a good, strong fire, you have to pay attention to the spaces between the logs. If you stack the logs too tightly, the flame may start, but it’ll sputter out quickly owing to lack of sufficient oxygen. If you stack the logs too loosely, the flame will never get started. To get the flame just right, you have to stack the logs just right. That flame is like the performance an organization is able to achieve, and those spaces between the logs are like the relationships between the people and other components in an organizational system.

Take a Long-Term Focus. While MBR tactics can boost financial performance for short periods, they invariably lead to more unstable and inferior performance in the long run. A company that runs according to principles that guide natural systems will enjoy long-term results that are more stable and more satisfying than the results recorded by a company that runs according to MBR principles. This difference is portrayed in a graph of the performance of two hypothetical organizations — Company A (run based on MBR) and Company B (run based on MBM) (see “Stability Vs. Drama”). To evaluate the two companies’ performance, the graph plots performance over several business cycles, using traditional financial metrics, such as operating income, operating profit, return on investment, and so forth.

In this graph, Company A shows a variable, unstable performance pattern. Company B’s performance pattern varies much less; overall, this firm seems much more stable. At first glance, Company B’s performance looks kind of lukewarm. The firm never loses money, but it never achieves the kinds of peaks that Company A does. However, Company B always does reasonably well. Indeed, in the long run, its average results may prove better than its competitors’.

Toyota is an example of a Company B enterprise. Its long-term financial performance is less variable and, overall, less “exciting” than that of its competitors. In times of peak prosperity, its bottom-line returns seldom garner the attention the press often pays to its competitors’ soaring profits. But during recession periods, it never suffers negative returns.

Differences in accounting conventions make it difficult to unambiguously compare Toyota’s average long-term profitability with that of the American auto makers. However, stock market capitalization data indicate that Toyota earns a consistently higher average level of profit than any of its competitors. Indeed, annual data compiled since 1988 show that Toyota’s “market cap” exceeds the market cap of every one of the American “Big Three” auto makers in each year, and it equals or exceeds the combined market cap of the Big Three in three of those years (see “Toyota Vs. the Big Three”)!

Support a “Multicellular” Organization. In a “natural” organization, work follows a simple and straightforward path. Orders come in, and products go out. That’s it. How does this happen? Everyone in the company functions as an essential part of a multi cellular organization: They each figure out what they need to do to satisfy their customer — whether it’s someone within the company to whom their work flows next or someone outside. The flow of work through the entire system resembles that of the metabolic flow through the cells in a tree or in a human body. Moreover, the rate of that flow is dictated not by centralized control mechanisms, but simply by what the customer wants, in the time he or she wants it. As a result, work flows at the same rate among all the cells of the “organism.”

Thus, rather than looking to financial controllers, cost accounting procedures, and computers to tell them what to do next, employees in a natural organization look to the flow of work itself — at every step in the value stream — to determine what needs to be done. The work itself gives them all the information they need. To have the information that guides work be present in the work itself is not possible, of course, until the work flows more or less continuously from hand to hand. Connecting work in a continuous flow is how a company begins to free its operational information from bondage to computer control systems.

To run your organization according to the principles that guide living systems, you may well have to let go of old assumptions and adopt challenging new ones. But as Toyota has proven beyond question, the payoff makes the effort worthwhile. Indeed, Toyota’s example shows that treating the means as “ends-in-the-making” is a much surer route to stable and satisfactory financial performance than to continue, as most companies do, to chase targets as though the means do not matter.

TOYOTA VS. THE BIG THREE

Stock market capitalization data indicate that Toyota earns a consistently higher average level of profit than any of its competitors. Indeed, annual data compiled since 1988 show that Toyota’s “market cap” exceeds the market cap of every one of the American “Big Three” auto makers in each year, and it equals or exceeds the combined market cap of the Big Three in three of those years.

The post Manage by Means, Not Results appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

According to the dictionary, trust has essentially two meanings:

• To have confidence in someone, or
• To expect/hope/suppose that someone will act or something will happen.

In the workplace, we need to consider this distinction. For me, real trust is about the first definition — the belief in a person’s ability to perform a specific task under specific circumstances. It is a positive statement about the relationship between two people:, “I believe you are capable of [taking some action].” This form of trust implies interdependence and is crucial to the development of a healthy relationship.

The second meaning connotes obligation:, “I expect that you will [take some action].” As such, it implies dependence in the relationship. This attitude blocks the development of an equal partnership, where both parties can feel fully valued. Unfortunately, this latter definition of trust is all too prevalent in many organizations.

We Are in This Together

Why is real trust so important? Studies have shown that it improves task effectiveness, because it reduces the need for people to check up on each other. Great teamwork requires real trust because members need to feel confident that their coworkers are fulfilling their commitments as they work interdependently toward the same aim. In relationships based on the first definition of trust, people feel relaxed and can communicate openly; these factors boost individual and group enthusiasm for joint undertakings. Lack of real trust increases anxiety, diverts attention from the task, stifles innovation, and drains energy.

But real trust can be difficult to achieve. All too often, we see people as assets or things that are ultimately replaceable. We forget that others have aspirations and needs, and, given the opportunity, want to do their best at work. We fail to acknowledge that the individuals who design, operate, and manage our organizations are key to our mutual success.

Dynamics of Trust and Control

When an organization fails to achieve the desired performance, managers have a choice (see “Trust and Control”). They can set in place mechanisms designed to reduce the performance gap — procedures, scripts, checks, and measures that assess and constrain performance. Or they can trust their staff and colleagues and support them by having a clear common purpose, coaching and encouraging them, and engendering a collaborative learning culture.

Command Loop. One option for addressing the performance gap is to introduce control, setting in motion the Command loop. At first, the control may take a supportive form. Common, standardized practices can help everyone behave consistently and successfully. Managers usually introduce control with this positive intent, believing that if the implementation is well managed and aligned to a common purpose, then everything should be okay.

The problem occurs when managers see control mechanisms as the means to minimize performance gaps and use them more and more frequently. They rely less on coaching and open discussion for learning and fine-tuning performance, falling back instead on policing mechanisms designed to ensure compliance with rules.

TRUST AND CONTROL

In the Command loops, managers address a performance gap by instilling control mechanisms and standardized practices. This approach works in the short term, but over time, workers’ level of commitment falls and further undermines performance. In the Nurturing loops, real trust builds on itself, leading to improved performance.

Inherent within the Command loop is the second definition of trust — “I trust that you will…,” meaning “I expect you to adhere to these rules/standards.” These requirements do not constitute real trust in someone; they are about compliance with a directive.

Yet people are not machines. As Maslow documented more than a half century ago, we all have a basic need for fulfillment and involvement. To command performance in a work environment may have been successful when commanders held the lives of workers or slaves in their hands. Today, workers have a totally different set of rights and expectations. People typically respond to being told what to do by digging in their heels or complying with reduced self-motivation. Both responses are saying, “If you don’t trust me, then why should I bother?”

If you’ve never experienced this dynamic, believe me, you don’t want to. It can be debilitating for any team or organization. Compliance costs people and companies money, mental energy, and time. When the use of control mechanisms escalates, it undermines individual and team performance and leads to a pervasive lack of trust.

When this happens, the challenge becomes more than just addressing the performance gap; it involves addressing increasing numbers of employee issues. Employees behave in ways that may not conform with their supervisors’ wishes as they seek to rationalize the rules with their own needs and understanding of what will work. They may lack motivation or commitment, as demonstrated by increased absenteeism; they may become obsessive and emotionally volatile, rejecting all outside input; or they may become politicized, seeking allegiances and undermining perceived threats to their survival.

Suppliers, customers, and other third parties readily pick up on the lack of trust. The organization probably uses the command loop with them, too. No doubt it seemed like a good, or at least an expeditious, idea at the time!

Once lost, real trust can be hard to rekindle. In a control culture, if people’s performance isn’t what managers want it to be, then managers ironically put additional controls in place. But, as Evert Gummesson states in Total Relationship Marketing (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999), “Trust cannot be assured through contracts.”

Nurturing Loop. The other option is to address the performance gap through the Nurturing loop. Here, real trust allows for open communication when a problem occurs. Healthy relationships and open communication enable people to work together to proactively learn how to address the gap efficiently and effectively. Basic guidelines and protocols provide consistency and help people avoid illegalities. However, any control mechanisms should be minimal, designed with the involvement of the relevant operational teams.

For the Nurturing loop to succeed, the organization must have a clear, explicit common purpose to which all goals and decisions are aligned. This provides a coherent message and environment with which people can engage and to which they can contribute positively. Everyone is explicitly going in the same direction. Trusting appropriately recruited people to meet the agreed performance goals breeds a positive, supportive team environment and serves as a basis for success.

People may lack a common purpose because none exists in the organization, or because it’s not clearly communicated. Humans are goal-oriented beings. We need something to justify our actions and from which to derive self-worth and a sense of identity. Without a common purpose to work toward, we create our own goals or ask colleagues and friends until we find one that makes sense for us.

As a result, most people in the organization have different goals and act in disparate ways. When different parts of the organization try to achieve different things, tension builds. Managers then put more controls in place. In these circumstances, it can be hard to establish a common purpose, as people may have been working to their own strongly defined goals for some time and will be wary of the new initiative.

Solutions

If you find yourself in a control culture, take heart; there are things that you can do.

1. Understand why the situation is as it is, identify the difference that will make a difference, and leverage change for the better. Finding out about the situation helps to inform you of the underlying dynamics:
   • What and who is sustaining, or benefiting from, the distrust?
   • Who is predisposed and motivated to address it?
   • What sense of “we’re in this together” exists?
   • Where is the leadership?
   • What do people feel they need to move forward?

   Once you’ve identified the dynamics; the players and their goals, motivators, and beliefs; and people’s openness to change and desire to get involved, then you can start to plan your approach to reinstate real trust. The aim is to decide on the most efficacious route to break the patterns in a sustainable way. This can be difficult; organizations driven by red-tape, procedures, and protocols are usually plagued by inertia, providing an extra challenge to change.

2. Stop the cycle of distrust and find ways as a group to rebuild positive relationships.
3. Get a commitment from top leaders to follow through on a program of re-engagement and realignment in the organization.
4. As an individual, define your own overarching goal. Work to nurture and protect your team as you build support for your approach with colleagues and senior managers. All the time, you must align your actions and decisions to your goal, even if you don’t explicitly refer to it. If people are used to following controls, you may even have to create new, aligned procedures and processes until you are able to dismantle the old ones.

Some organizations are so deeply entrenched in the cycle of distrust that one person alone won’t be able to make much of a difference. In that case, you have two choices. First, you can accept the ways things are, do your 9 to 5, and enjoy life. If you work in a large organization full of inertia, you’ll be okay for a while. At some point, you’re likely to become deadwood in the eyes of colleagues. At that point, you either should move on or take another stab at implementing change.

The second choice is to find somewhere else to work. You’ll feel good and will leave on a positive note, looking forward to the next part of your life.

Conclusion

Tom Peters speaks of trust as being the “single most important contributor to the maintenance of human relationships. And for business, it can, quite simply, mean the difference between success and failure.” Relationships are about achieving more together than we could on our own. If problems occur, the most fruitful approach is to work with people to resolve them, based on trust, open communication, and proactive learning. For once you start putting in systems of control that force or constrain behaviors, you will be on the slippery slope toward lower performance and a dysfunctional organization.

David Newport (david@effectivevision.co.uk) is an NLP Practitioner and ergonomist, with a background in qualitative research and operations direction. He works with people and organizations to help them understand the behavioral traits and dynamics that impact both their customer experience and bottom line.

The post Whom Do You Trust? 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.

By answering a couple of questions and connecting a few lines on the back of a napkin or piece of scrap paper, you gain insight about the level of “fit” among three critical and interdependent components:

• Work system
• Cultural system
• Management system

When these systems are aligned, the organization is better able to achieve its goals. And isn’t that what it’s all about?

SYSTEMS EQUILIBRIUM MODEL

The Work System. First, draw a horizontal line and number it from one to five (see “Systems Equilibrium Model”). Label it the “Work System.” This line symbolizes the actual tasks or technology performed by a specific group. At the left end of the continuum is “Routine” work—simple activities such as stacking widgets on an assembly line, flipping burgers, or processing paperwork in the same repetitive way. Because it is easy to master, routine work does not require employees to have intensive training or to exercise independent thought.

The other end of the continuum represents “Complex’’ tasks, defined as challenging, ambiguous, or complicated projects. Complex work requires a high degree of expertise, decision-making, and analysis. Salespeople out in the field and highly skilled knowledge workers are all engaged in complex work. Rate your group’s work system below by placing an “X” at the appropriate number.

The Management System. The second component in this model is the “Management System,” which represents forms of decision-making, levels of organizational structure, and leadership styles. Draw a line that is perpendicular to the first one, and number it from one to five, from the bottom up. Label number one “Autocratic” and number five “Interactive.” In “autocratic” systems, positional power, command-and-control bosses, centralized decision-making, and an emphasis on face-time in the office are the norm.

At the other end of the continuum, “Interactive” represents mangers who return authority to others, rely on personal power, and engage in coaching and collaboration to achieve results through empowered people, processes, and systems. Because decisions are typically participatory and decentralized, employees are frequently trusted to work from home or out in the field with customers. Place an “X” on the number that best describes your management system.

The Cultural System. Organizational culture is a complex web of symbols, stories, heroes, attitudes, dress codes, tacit behavioral patterns, and physical spaces. It powerfully affects motivational levels, empowerment, and the amount of energy people choose to exert. Whenever we try to enact a change in business, culture can be the biggest obstacle.

Draw a diagonal line midway between the “Work System” and “Management System” lines, and number it one to five. Label this continuum “Disengaged” at number one and “Engaged” at number five. People in a disengaged culture are less emotionally invested than in an engaged one. Disengaged cultures don’t easily adapt to change and can be characterized by finger pointing or blaming of others. Employees often feel isolated or forgotten, which can create an “us against them” mindset.

At the other extreme, engaged cultures are resilient and accountable. People have a can-do, team-oriented attitude, which empowers them to be creative and solutions oriented. Rate your cultural system by placing an “X” at the appropriate number below.

Diagnosing Systems Equilibrium

At this point, you simply connect the three lines as illustrated in “Sample Model” to assess the level of systems alignment. Optimally, you would find congruency and fit among the three systems, indicated by a right angle when the “Xs” are connected. In this case, the three systems reinforce and support each other.

SAMPLE MODEL

A right angle square indicates equilibrium.

For example, the Work system for knowledge workers would typically be defined as ‘Complex.” The optimal Cultural system to support complex work would be “Engaged,” because the tasks require a customer-oriented, accountable and empowered workforce. Finally, “Complex” projects are most successful with the support and flexibility found in an “Interactive” Management system, because knowledge workers often know more about the actual work than do their managers.

Key Points

The premise of this model is that an organization should strive toward congruency in the three systems to create a reinforcing, supportive state of equilibrium. If you have achieved that goal, the next step is to engage workers more fully in the organization’s mission by increasing the size of your “square.” So, if you rated all your systems a two, the square that results when you connect the “Xs” will be smaller than if you rated them a five. What should you do if your square is relatively small?

The best place to start is with the Work system. All systems should revolve around and support the work—the core of what the group does to add value. Find ways to gradually increase task complexity through job enrichment and by redefining some tasks so they aren’t unnecessarily repetitive. However, if micromanage- ment and disempowerment have been the norm, don’t expect many employees to embrace the change—you may need to hire new people to take the organization to the next level.

Diagnosing Systems Disequilibrium

When the three systems do not align, the system is in disequilibrium. There are two common states of disequilibrium. The first is called the “Bow and Arrow Effect,” which occurs when the Cultural system pulls negatively in on the Management and Work systems (see “Bow and Arrow Effect”). This dynamic typically occurs when managers suddenly demand that employees process work or interact differently. It can also be a result of a layoff, reorganization, or other significant organizational change.

BOW AND ARROW EFFECT

To respond to the Bow and Arrow Effect, managers must use empathy and inspiration to engage everyone in the process. Over time, and with sustained persistence, the organization will gradually move toward equilibrium if managers effectively implement longterm change efforts and congruent systems to support the desired behaviors.

Another common state of disequilibrium is the “Rubber Band Effect,” which occurs when the Cultural system evolves beyond the other two systems (see “Rubber Band Effect”); that is, when management introduces new norms and practices without changing the nature of work or management style. After a while, without changes in the other systems, the Cultural system will revert to the status quo.

RUBBER BAND EFFECT

If you are attempting to think of ways to gradually shift the other two systems as well. Start first with the Work system by enriching people’s job. Then, introduce participatory management practices, which may include reorganizing and flattening the organizational structure.

The Systems Equilibrium model is both diagnostic and prescriptive. By simply drawing a meaningful snapshot of current systems, you can diagnose disparities among them. Once you see the source of the disequilibrium, you can prescribe specific interventions and move closer to equilibrium. By bringing these three systems into equilibrium, workers will be more satisfied, and the organization will better be able to achieve its goals.

Janet Macaluso (janet@learning2lead.net) is a consultant member of the Society of Organizational Learning who specializes in creating competitive organizational value through leadership and teams. She is the founder of Learning2LEAD. This article is an adaptation of the earlier “Inter-Systems Approach” developed more than 30 years ago by one of Janet’s most memorable teachers, the late Patrick Williams of Pepperdine University.

The post Using the ‘Back of a Napkin’ to Assess Systems Equilibrium and Guide Change appeared first on The Systems Thinker.