Last night I spoke at an event held by the QUT Career Mentors Scheme. They were a great group of people – the mentees are students about to finish their degree and the mentors volunteer their time to support the students as they make the transition from study to work.
I shared some ideas on how to create great mentoring relationships, particularly how to avoid mentoring relationships that lack vitality and are….frankly boring.
As a very young doctor, fresh out of medical school, I led the hospital cardiac arrest team. Yep, that is right. I made life or death decisions; treating patients whose hearts had effectively stopped. It was utterly terrifying, and when we saved a life, wonderful and miraculous.
The really cool thing about cardiac arrest teams is that they function as an effective team from the moment that team members arrive in the room; even though they often have never worked together before.
Decisions get made quickly and are acted on immediately. And sometimes, as a result of those decisions, people are brought back from the dead. It is wonderful.
Why do cardiac arrest teams work so well together?
Because they are well set up.
The purpose of the team is very clear and everyone agrees what that purpose is.
Everyone in the team understands who is responsible for what. They know who will do which action. They know which decisions each team members makes individually; which they will make in consultation with others and which decisions the whole team will make by consensus.
If one member of the team is unable to respond to the ‘Cardiac Arrest on Ward A1‘ call, there is a clear agreed way of sharing out the work, so that it all gets done. Team members don’t have to waste time renegotiating responsibilities.
The situation itself also helps the team to work well together. There is immediate feedback. The doctor takes an action and can see the result within seconds. Either the patient’s heart rhythm improves or it doesn’t.
If you want your team to be more effective, pause for a moment. Have you set your team up to work well together? How is the situation influencing their behaviour?
I recently heard of a leadership programme where it is expected that half way through the programme participants will contact the CEO of their large organisation to complain. They are doubtful about the usefulness of the programme and feel overwhelmed, stressed and angry. The CEO apparently responds by telling them to ‘suck it up’. Why does he tell them this? Because he sees that, in the long run, the programme works – the majority of participants do become better leaders after the programme. They are wiser, more courageous and demonstrate more integrity.
Although the programme apparently ‘works’ it sounds to me like it is causing unnecessary suffering to participants. Let me explain what I mean.
When I was a junior doctor, all gall bladder operations involved a long incision, a 2 hour operation, 5 days in hospital and 4-6 weeks recovery time. Fast forward 15 years and most gall bladder operations are now done laparoscopically, via small incisions in the abdomen. The patient only needs to stay in hospital overnight and returns to normal activities within a week.
I think that some leadership trainers are doing the equivalent of an open cholecystectomy. They are inflicting unnecessary trauma on participants in order to achieve the required changes when they could be using newer, more effective and less damaging behaviour change technology.
Contextual behavioural science has the clues to these more effective and less traumatic ways of achieving the same important outcomes.
Contextual behavioural science (CBS) aims to ‘predict and influence behavior, with precision, scope, and depth.’ What this means is that CBS is using scientific inquiry to work out exactly what works in helping human beings to develop and grow.
So what does a leadership course based on these principles look like?
It understands that most of us become inflexible when we feel threatened. If the learning environment is safe, secure and playful we are more likely to learn new behaviours that we will then apply in the real world.
At the start of the programme participants choose the values they want to express through their work. What they want to stand for. How they want others to experience them. This is important as this links the leadership programme to their own internal motivation (‘What is important to me’) which is much more powerful than external motivation ( e.g.’My CEO says I have to suck it up’).
A combination of 360 feedback and reflection (supported by coaching) helps participants to identify the behaviours that they need to Keep, Start and Stop doing. Participants learn research findings about which leadership behaviours are effective in which settings; so that they can make wise choices about what behaviours to focus on.
Participants explore the function of any behaviours that they find both problematic and resistant to change. They then use this information to develop a plan for change. This is because behaviours that look the same can actually have completely different underlying aims. If the plan for change doesn’t take this into account it is likely to be ineffective. For example: participants who complain to the CEO could either be trying to avoid something difficult or they could be asking for a more effective leadership programme. In the first case, some work around becoming better at handling uncomfortable emotions might be warranted, whereas in the second, it might be helpful to learn how to manage upwards more skilfully.
Facilitators in a programme based on contextual behavioural science understand that problematic thoughts and feelings are often what hold people back from expressing courageous, caring and inspiring behaviours. The programme therefore includes evidence based methods to handle painful thoughts and feelings more effectively.
Participants learn to become more mindful. They become good at observing their own behaviour and it’s impact. Noticing when their behaviour aligns with their own deeply held values and when they are off course…and then self correcting.
Relational Frame Theory is used to improve the design of activities and metaphors. Why relational frame theory? Because it is a theory of language, cognition and learning that has more than 60 studies to support it.
During workshops, the behaviours that participants have identified as needing to change are likely to occur. These events are seen as opportunities for authentic and thoughtful conversations where the effects of these behaviours on both the particular participant and on other participants is explored. The outcomes of the behaviour in the session are then linked to their possible outcomes in the ‘real’ world.
Facilitators and other participants also look for and encourage positive changes in behaviour. Participants make plans for how to try out these new behaviours in their work and then observe the effect.
Participant’s managers are seen as an important part of the programme. It is much easier to change when people around you are supportive of the change.
A leadership course run this way would still be challenging for participants but it would be less likely to overwhelm them. Even better, early research is suggesting it might even be more effective than standard leadership training. (Professor Frank Bond has some research in press showing just this).
Dragon’s Den is a show where budding entrepreneurs pitch their ideas to a group of successful business people in the hope of winning some investment.
The show fascinates me. I love spotting academic theories about influence and negotiation being played out in real life. The show also demonstrates how more psychologically flexible entrepreneurs tend to be more successful in their pitches. Professor Frank Bond has done some cool research at the BBC to support this idea.
There seem to be a few key principles if you want to get the approval of the investors.
1. Consider the perspective of the investors (Why would they want to invest? What will they gain?); potential customers (Why would they buy?) and competitors (How easy would it be for them to steal my idea?). Perspective taking is a key aspect of psychological flexibility.
2. Hold ideas like ‘This is a brilliant idea and I am going to be incredibly successsful‘ lightly. Fusing with these sorts of thoughts seems to increase the risk of throwing good money after bad and doesn’t seem to convince others.
3. Understand the difference between solid, real world facts and what your mind is telling you. Others find facts much more convincing than your opinion. Smart business people consider the facts (Sales figures, profits, awards won) when they make decisions.
4. Learn to perform well even when you are feeling incredibly anxious. This is a great strength of the ACT approach. ACT teaches people how to perform even when they are feeling strong emotions. Rob and I have a course on this.
5. When you are having an important conversation – really listen to what the other person is saying. Get present with them and give them your full attention. Be open to their feedback and also be willing to give them facts that might change their mind.
6. Know your values and live those values in the interaction. You then come across as vital, authentic and trustworthy (assuming those are your values!)
7. Know how this ‘pitch’ fits with what you want your life to be about. Is this a drive to make money or does it connect to something deeper?
7. Demonstrate willingness. What are you prepared to do to make your idea successful? Live on very little money? Work hard? Face rejection? Acknowledge what you don’t know and ask for help?
Here is someone who nailed it – sadly he completely misses the reason he nailed it.
Sometimes we have to make important decisions where the ‘right’ answer is unclear. I would like to suggest this process for making for those tricker decisions:
1. Which of your values are relevant in this situation?
2. What are the key facts? In this step aim to see the world the way it really is rather than as your mind tells you it is.
3. What is the relationship between the facts – how do they interact?
4. Focus in depth on different parts of the problem (whilst keeping the whole in mind). Take different perspectives – how would others view this problem? How will you view this problem in 5 years time?
5. Consider that there may be a better alternative that you haven’t thought of. Ask for advice. Do some research. Brainstorm. Consider trialling different options and observing how they turn out.
6. Be prepared to sit either with the discomfort of not deciding or with the discomfort of deciding and possibly making the wrong decision. See if it possible to have those difficult thoughts and feelings without them pushing you around.
7. Make a decision and then check it against your values – is this a move towards what you want your life to be about?
6. Observe the outcome and be prepared to make incremental adjustments. Again, work to see the world as it really is – rather than how your mind tells you it is.
I think the concept of ‘work-life balance’ is deeply flawed.
The phrase suggests that:
Work and life are somehow different. Now, that is patently stupid. If you aren’t feeling alive when you are working, then your problem isn’t lack of work-life balance. You probably need a good career coach – I hear that this fellow is quite good.
There is a state where everything is in balance and there are people who have achieved that state. I have honestly never been in that state. have you? Do you know anyone who has been in that state?
I think a much better strategy involves a fundamentally different approach.
(Enjoying the Beach with Albert – Two valued domains (Relationship and Health) at the same time!)
1. Instead of just balancing work and life I think the task is much more complex. We need to work on balancing different life domains (or what Kelly Wilson would call ‘Domains of valued living’). Most of us have a few of these. Mine are: family, work/achievement, learning, friends, relationship, health and wellbeing, contribution/community.
2. It would also help to view ‘balance’ as a verb – ‘balancing’. An ongoing process that involves:
Deciding on the areas of life that matter to you and what values and actions you want to take in each area.
Noticing how you are doing over time. Getting better and better at noticing when you are focussed too much on one area of life and neglecting other important areas…and then making a correction.
Most of us live in a culture that gives the message that our thoughts control our actions. This assumption seems benign but it actually creates a problem for us. The problem is, if we treat this assumption as true, then, if we want to be successful, we have to first get our thoughts ‘right’ (‘I am capable of being a great team leader’; ‘I will do a good job of giving this feedback’; ‘I am going to write a really good blogpost’) and that is actually really hard. I tell myself ‘I am capable of being a great team leader’ and my mind says ‘Yes, but what about the time you...’
A more useful approach is to build our capacity to observe our thoughts and then choose which thoughts to act on and which ones to just let play in the background. To get some space between ourselves and the endless stream of thoughts our minds come up with.
The more skilful we can become at observing rather than acting on our thoughts, the more freedom we have to take actions that create the outcomes that are important to us.
Elizabeth Gilbert (Image via Wikipedia)
In this beautiful TED talk, Elizabeth Gilbert, (author of ‘Eat, Pray, Love‘) explores the strategies she used to get some distance from thoughts that were plaguing her that her ‘greatest creative success was behind her’ and ‘creativity is inherently linked to anguish’.
As she explores these idea’s, she uses the gorgeous phrase:
‘You look at it even from half an inch away’.
It is in that space. The space between you and your thoughts, even if it is only half an inch, that freedom can be found*.
When that space is available to you during your next feedback conversation, you can be present with the other person. You can really notice their responses. You can observe your own behaviour and shift it from moment to moment as you see what is and isn’t working. And in the background your mind is gabbling away – ‘She is going to hate me’; ‘This is going terribly’; ‘I hope I can get out of here soon’; ‘What if she puts in a bullying complaint against me’ and having those thoughts is okay because it is just your mind doing what minds do and you don’t have to pay it a lot of attention.
(*For any ACT experts out there – this is a quote from someone but I can’t remember who! Let me know so that I can credit them!)
I recently watched a brilliant film, called The Flaw which explored the global financial crisis and its causes.
Capitalism is a system which, through its invisible hand is able to benefit the many via the self interest of the few. By trying to maximise their own gains in a free market, individuals benefit society, even without setting out to do so.
But I would argue that the flaw runs deeper than Greenspan thinks. Capitalism – at least in its current form – is flawed in terms of psychology. The way that work gets structured and organised tends to distance people from their values and sense of responsibility. A combination of behavioural reinforcement, mindlessness (due to workload?) and a short term, inward focus encourages a kind of collective myopia and disconnect from our own values.
I found this myself when, as a consultant, my objective rapidly went from helping the public sector to improve its efficiency, to selling consultancy services into the public sector.
At one point in The Flaw individual bankers, traders and derivatives experts were asked whether they felt any direct responsibility for the financial disaster. Most of them fell silent. Not, I think, because they felt guilty, but more because they genuinely did not know the answer. Such was the way their role had been structured they had lost contact with any kind of individual responsibility. Their role had distanced them from their individual values without them even really being aware that that had happened. No one was responsible.
It is this flaw which allows individual bankers to argue that they did nothing wrong, whilst millions cope with repossession, debts and unemployment. It is this flaw that allows senior managers to sell packages of derivatives that no one truly understands. It is this flaw that allows News International bosses to turn a blind eye to practices which were contrary to the ethics of their own profession. It is this flaw that allows nurses and care home workers to treat the elderly and sick with cruelty and contempt.
I don’t think anyone deliberately set out to do this. But we create our organisations, and then they create us.
What Can We Do to Address The Flaw?
Our organisations have created a version of us which too easily loses contact with individual accountability and values. Instead, management focus on implementing organisational values. The problem with this is that these are not really values – they are tracks and plys.
What then is the answer? Better economic regulation is key, as are changes to governance practices that promote longer term thinking, flexible perspective taking and individual accountability.
But we also need to understand how and why people lose contact with their values at an individual level. One of the major reasons is that staying in contact with our values is very difficult. It requires psychological skills that are not innate or obvious. It requires interventions that go far beyond merely promoting happiness or engagement.
It is interventions like ACT that have shown that people can be trained to deal with the psychological consequences of following their values. Whilst this is not easy, we cannot fix the flaw simply by trying to build happiness or engagement or by legislating for transparency or fairness. None of that addresses the reality of what it means to be a human. But if we can teach willingness to experience difficult thoughts and feelings in pursuit of values, then we have much more of a chance.
If ACT can help reconnect even those lost in depression and chronic pain to their values and make a real difference to their experience, it does not take much imagination to think that maybe there are things we can learn which apply directly to organisational culture change.
There is a flaw. We can fix it. But we must listen to the science.
Are you willing to invest energy in your work? Do you persist in the face of difficulty and give your full attention to your work when you are at work? Do you feel like your work matters? Do you care about doing a good job? If your answer is ‘yes‘ then you are engaged with your work.
Rob and I are highly engaged with this project – we hope that this comes through in our writing. I believe that applying ACT principles to this project has helped us to maintain our energy and enthusiasm.
In our experience, ACT builds workplace engagement in a number of ways:
When people are connected to their values and are able to live their values in their work they have a deep sense of meaning and purpose. They experience vitality. Rob describes here what that looks like in practice. Here is the values statement Rob and I wrote when we started working together. We spent time on it because we knew that if we were to persist with this, if we were to give energy to this project when we have so many other competing priorities, then we would need to be clear about why it mattered to us.
When people feel a deep connection between their work and their values they become more willing to persist in the face of difficulty. They care about the outcome. They want to do their best. This week I gave a talk to a group of senior managers and CEO’s (arranged by the lovely people at Arete Executive.) I was frankly terrified. I tried to wriggle out of my fear by minimising the importance.“I don’t need any more work. My consultancy is really busy. It doesn’t matter whether they like my talk” but Rob, bless his heart, wouldn’t let me do that. He reminded me that the purpose of my talk wasn’t to ‘sell’ my consulting services or the training sessions that Rob and I offer together (although that would be nice!). It was to connect the audience to some information that might genuinely help them (and their employees) to have more vitality in their lives. I felt more anxious after this conversation (Thanks Rob!) but I also had a deep sense that it was worth it.
When people become skilful at ‘defusing’* from their thoughts and accepting** their feelings, they have more energy and attention to give to their work as they aren’t wasting energy trying to get their thoughts and feelings ‘right’.
When people are in contact with the present moment, they make better decisions and tend to respond more flexibly and effectively to their circumstances.
Both the research and our experience is suggesting that ACT will be central to future workplace engagement initiatives. I am excited!
Explaining the jargon:
*Defusion is an ACT term that means having some space between you and your thoughts. Rather than seeing the world through your thoughts, you see your thoughts as just thoughts.
**Acceptance is about the reality that when we take action in line with our values, then often painful emotions (like anxiety) turn up. If we want rich and meaningful lives, sometimes we need to make space for those painful emotions.
And so it came to pass that one day, having been considered ‘talent’ for most of my life, and having spent most of my energy on defending this ludicrous position, I eventually became known as ‘non talent’. Anti talent? Whatever, I did not make the talent pool in my next consultancy job, and it hurt.
I only found out there was a talent pool when some whipper snapper – who I had recruited – blurted out that he was on it. And what effect, dear reader, did this label have on my performance? Needless to say, I did not handle it well:
1. My first reaction was childish. I sulked and withdrew. I stopped all discretionary effort and focused on trying to find out who was in the talent pool and what they had that I didn’t.
2. My second reaction was to believe that now, suddenly, I was not living up to my potential. This knocked my previously overinflated confidence, and may have been a good thing, except for the fact that I very quickly bought into a story that I was failing. This led what I would loosely call ‘unfocused activity’ or panic. I was thrashing about, trying to find answers to a problem that probably only existed in my own head.
3. Eventually I became depressed and stuck in career paralysis. My job became one of simply getting through each day.
I know there are benefits to talent schemes, other than profits for consultancies. But I have to ask the question whether these benefits are not hugely outweighed by the costs. On the one hand, the talent label seems to be a way of reinforcing peoples’ tendency to recruit from their own, which leads to groupthink and a serious amount of overconfidence in one’s ability. Financial crisis anyone?
On the other, the ‘non talent’ label leads to a sense that we are not worthwhile, and that we must defer to those who are. In terms of performance, this takes us back full circle. Julian McNally told us:
“Labels, including diagnostic ones, are only useful to the extent they enable constructive action”.
I’ll leave you to decide how useful the talent label is at either individual or organisational level, and whether it enables enough constructive action to justify its use.
Working with ACT 