 ‘Research is seeing what everybody else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought.’ (Albert Szent-Györgyi) Today’s focus group with participants from Colombia, England, Iran and Scotland was an intriguing experience. They are all employed as research professionals at a university and their expertise was evidenced as much by the questions they asked as the insights they shared. As facilitator, I spent much of the time listening to discern underlying themes as they spoke together in free-flow around issues and experiences that matter to them. I was aware of both tuning in to hear and understand, and tuning out to maintain an independent perspective. One of the participants reflected astutely from the outset that the order in which discussion questions had been framed mirrored symbolically something of their experience. The first question was focused on organisational issues, the second on cross-departmental and the third on individual. This represented, for them, a perceived hierarchy of importance in the culture of the university itself – with organisational agendas at the top of the pyramid and individual interests at the bottom. It was a profound insight that proved pivotal to the conversation. In debrief afterwards in a café with the client, we reflected on how best to present the outputs of the focus group to organisational decision-makers. If it’s true that leaders are focused first and foremost on the needs of the institution, whereas the researchers were primarily concerned with issues affecting individuals, we will aim to demonstrate how addressing the researchers’ recommendations would benefit the institution, whilst also hold up an observation of the perceived need to do so, as a mirror to raise awareness of implicit cultural values.
7 Comments
 ‘As coaches, the greatest tool we need to cultivate is our self.’ (Pamela McLean) Many years ago now, during a masters’ degree core module on psychological dynamics in organisations, I said to a colleague in a spirit of curiosity, ‘I keep feeling an impulse to hug you.’ They looked amazed and said, ‘I’m feeling really vulnerable today.’ I had no idea from their demeanour. They always presented as very calm, relaxed and confident. We discussed this in light of the programme focus that day and concluded that, intuitively and subconsciously, I had picked up on something of their anxiety and need for reassurance. A number of factors were at play here: it was unusual in our relationship and, mysteriously, it somehow felt like it was something about me, but not only about me. In later years, whist doing a postgraduate course in coaching psychology, I discovered this kind of noticing can be used powerfully in coaching conversations. Psychological practitioners call this use-of-self, the idea that what we observe in and between ourselves during an interaction can be used tentatively as an instrument for awareness-raising in another person. I use the word tentatively here because it’s about exploring a possibility and not superimposing our own feelings or interpretations onto the other. I saw this opportunity arise in an intense conversation recently where a manager was working very hard to cajole a team member into demonstrating greater proactivity and initiative. The team member was nodding in passive agreement rather than playing a more active role in their own development. Imagine if the manager had paused, reflected, and fed this back as an observation instead: ‘I’m feeling (intra-personally) a strong desire to see you being more proactive…and I’m wondering (inter-personally) if I’m taking too much initiative in this conversation.’ It's as if the manager imagines herself momentarily stepping out of the relationship to stand in an observing place; then looks back at herself, the team member and the interaction between them and shares what she notices from that place. This would bring here-and-now experience into focus and invite the team member to reflect critically on their own agency too.  ‘Intuition is like reading a word without having to spell it out.’ (Agatha Christie) I had the privilege of training an inspiring, cross-cultural group of participants in South Africa, Rwanda and the UK this week who work in different roles in the same international non-governmental organisation (INGO). This online Action Learning Associates programme was designed to enable them to facilitate Action Learning sets (that is, groups) confidently and effectively. (If you’re unfamiliar with the concept of Action Learning, it’s a semi-structured, small-group, peer-coaching process that’s used widely in leadership and management development programmes and as part of wider organisation development (OD) initiatives). One of the areas we touched on during the training event is the value of drawing on intuition when facilitating groups. We could consider the facilitator’s role simply in terms of a series of tasks, e.g. introducing a meeting; leading a check-in; contracting ground-rules; guiding the group through the sequential steps of an Action Learning process; facilitating a review at the end. These are important elements that we learn to handle skilfully. At a deeper level, however, we can learn to tune into our intuition. This will help us to discern, for instance, unspoken issues; underlying group dynamics; or when a person-group is stuck or ready to move on. Intuition can feel mysterious, a sense of ‘knowing’ that we may experience bodily or as a feeling rather than as a rational concept in our mind. One of most mysterious experiences I had was when training a group of church and community leaders in Action Learning facilitation. When I first encountered one of the participants, the word ‘Ruth’ kept coming to mind. I mentioned this to him very tentatively and he looked astonished. Apparently, he was about to complete a PhD study on the book of Ruth in the Bible. I had no idea. For me, spiritual discernment sits close to intuition. I always pray deeply before coaching or facilitating a set. How do you draw on intuition in your own life and practice? I’d love to hear from you! ‘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 fulfil 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. |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! 
Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|
RSS Feed