‘For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.’ (H.L. Mencken)
In a world that’s so often characterised by continual change, it appears that one thing that doesn’t change is our continual thirst for new acronyms. VUCA, RUPT or BANI – which best describes your view of reality? Which most helps you, or your clients, move forward to fulfilling vision, values and goals, whilst navigating whom or whatever could fly in unexpectedly from left field on route?
BANI, a more recent model than its predecessors, has some attractive and useful features for the current context. It acknowledges profound phenomenological dimensions of human experience, not simply the dynamics of the environmental realities we face. BANI draws attention to Brittleness, Anxiety, Non-linearity and Incomprehensibility and may provide a platform for addressing them.
Brittleness recognises that those things we regard as secure can fall apart overnight. Anxiety points to associated social health risks of anxiety and depression. Non-linear means it’s hard to predict consequences of actions with certainty because influencing factors can spring up from anywhere. Incomprehensible proposes that sense-making is impossible and we can find ourselves bewildered.
If that all sounds a bit abstract, think back to what you (and others) have witnessed and experienced in the past 2 years; how much of what has happened could have been known definitively in advance; what the impacts and implications have been for different people, groups and nations; how it has looked and felt; the deep questions it has raised; how clear and agreed a way forward is from here.
Macro examples have included the ongoing climate emergency, the Covid19 pandemic, the plastic-in-the-oceans disaster and the migrant crisis. We’ve seen shifts in the world’s political and economic landscapes that have been, at times, so sudden and so dramatic that they’ve caused whiplash and backlash. We have felt the ripple effects in our organisations, communities and personal lives.
What wisdom can BANI offer? Here are glimpses: Brittleness calls for resilience and collaboration; Anxiety: for empathy and human-spiritual relationship; Non-linearity: for adaptivity and agility; Incomprehensibility: for intuition and risk-taking. These are pointers to the kinds of qualities and capabilities we can develop for the future, with courage and humility as an underpinning stance.
Do you feel dazed and confused in a BANI world? Curious to discover how I can help? Get in touch!
It’s tempting to think the world has gone crazy. A crisis in one place followed in quick succession by a crisis somewhere else. Yet situations and events that appear completely unrelated can look mysteriously connected once we pause, step back from the dramatic media rhetoric and look more deeply. ‘What is really going on here?’, ‘What is influencing what?’, 'What patterns and links are forming?'
McDermott & O’Connor in ‘The Art of Systems Thinking’ distinguish between: simple complexity (e.g. a car engine that is complicated because it has numerous parts - yet it parts interact predictably and in fixed ways) and dynamic complexity (e.g. human systems such as families, teams, communities, nations etc. where different parties not only interact but change and influence each other).
Dynamic complexity at a global level is being accelerated and amplified by technology and social media that enable people to connect, interact and influence each other faster than ever before. As Wheatley explains in ‘Leadership & The New Science’, however, this does not necessarily create ever-increasing chaos. It’s as if even complex human systems find their own equilibrium and flow.
So what does this mean for leadership, OD and coaching? Firstly, look beyond the issue itself to inquire into ‘what else’ is creating and sustaining the conditions for it to arise. Secondly, view human systems in terms of relational influence rather than mechanics. Thirdly, be curious and responsive to what and where energy is emerging and shifting. Fourthly, be ready to let go - and dance!
Participants are arriving at the training room. I’ve never met them before and one appears very loud and confrontational. I’m taken aback, wondering how I’m going to work with this person in the group. I mention this to my co-trainer and he responds calmly, ‘Everyone has their own way of dealing with anxiety’. This was many years ago now but his words still resonate when I’m facilitating training events.
I’m back in a training room again. This time, more recently. It’s a group of senior leaders from an organisation and one of the participants repeatedly questions the trainers’ credentials as if to imply: ‘I don’t know if you have what it takes to do this well.’ He avoids taking part in activities by discussing and debating them rather than doing them. His behaviour feels resistive, disruptive, difficult. ‘Everyone has their own way of dealing with anxiety…’
OK, let's hypothesise: this man is among peers, concerned about how his performance will be perceived and evaluated. His organisation is going through leadership changes and he feels vulnerable. A subconscious voice gnaws at him from within: ‘What if I don’t have what it takes to do this well?’ ‘What if this exposes how inadequate I am?' He projects his insecurity onto the trainer and avoids activities as a defence against anxiety.
At the end of the day, the co-trainer and I leave feeling drained. It’s an unusual feeling and we wonder what we are carrying from the group. The group itself feels draining, drained. After all, it takes huge amounts of energy to hold up a front, to mask and subdue anxiety, to contain it. Perhaps the group’s behaviour opens a window into its wider organisational reality: ‘We don’t feel safe; this organisation doesn’t feel safe.’
I've found this psychodynamic perspective to be valuable for trainers, coaches and leaders alike. It poses questions such as: ‘What is really going on here?’, ‘What is what happens within the room telling us about what may be happening outside of the room?’, ‘What do participants in this group need to feel sufficiently safe to work together?’, ‘What do I need to recognise and work well with complex group dynamics?’
What is your experience of dealing with group anxiety? What have you noticed and experienced? How have you worked with it? I'll be interested to hear more!
I mentored a young woman this week who was struggling with the responses she sometimes receives when working with others in a business partnering capacity. She often feels undervalued or dismissed which then influences how she approaches and what she evokes and encounters in subsequent conversations. As the discussion unfolded, I was struck by her description of how she framed her role and authority alongside that of others in her own mind and how this impacted on her interactions with clients.
I was reminded of Transactional Analysis' (TA) insights into relational dynamics and so introduced some of its basic principles to her. TA definitely struck a chord so I looked online for simple introductory material to point her towards to learn more about it. I have read Harris' I'm OK You're OK and Berne's Games People Play and have just ordered a copy of Stuart & Joines' TA Today. However, I discovered a series of short videos on YouTube by Theramin Trees that were perfect. I've posted the links below for anyone else who may be interested.
TA1 - Ego States and Basic Transactions
TA2 - Games
TA3 - Gimmicks
I wrote a blog back in March called, ‘Goal, content, process and relationship’, based on coaching I was doing at the time with leadership teams. I’ve used and adapted this model since with various teams and have noticed some interesting results.
Firstly, some people found the word ‘process’ confusing because, in their cultural framework, it suggested formal business processes rather than creative methods (e.g. within a team meeting) that could work best for the people in the room. I now use the word ‘method’ instead.
Secondly, some teams found it helpful to substitute ‘why’ for goal, ‘what’ for content, ‘how’ for process and ‘who’ for relationship. This enabled them to include e.g. ‘vision’ under why, ‘activities’ under what, ‘processes’ under how and ‘behaviours’ under who.
Thirdly, some teams have found it useful to highlight warning signs against each of the model’s 4 dimensions, indicating what to look out for as red flags. Against ‘goal’ I write ‘dulled’, against content, ‘distracted’, against method, ‘disengaged’ and against people, ‘dismissed’.
The most striking observation for me has been how the model seems to easy in principle and yet so difficult to apply and sustain. This is because teams, like individuals, can struggle to break away from embedded preoccupations, patterns of behaviour and ways of working.
In light of this, I’ve found it useful to encourage teams to pause and notice their own behaviour, reflect honestly on what is influencing their choices, challenge themselves when they are drifting off track and be willing to face and address underlying dynamics.
If you have tried using this, contrasting or similar models in team development and coaching, I would be very interested to hear from you, e.g. what you have done, how you have applied it, what kind of response you got and what happened as a result.
I'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch!