Risk and fear in learning

Geoff Roberts change, Risk

Comfort zoneI have just come back from three wonderful days in Peterborough helping train a small group facilitators. Now facilitation is a many headed beast with lots of different definitions and expectations. In this case we were helping the participants to learn firstly about a 10 step process and secondly about the art and science of helping groups to make decisions within that process. The first part, as I have commented previously, is relatively straightforward whereas the second is, to me, the interesting arena.

There is a whole bunch of theory about facilitation, with John Heron being the most well-known guru, but the theory is no use unless you can put it into practice and it is only in practice that one really learns at an affective level about the realities of group dynamics. Moreover, that learning is partly about group dynamics and partly about oneself – it is the self learning that I want to comment on here.

One of the exercises we gave this group was to tell them that a small number of very senior and very experienced people would be coming along on the second evening and that our trainees were expected to host them. That’s all we told them, no times, no expectations etc. It was, and always is, interesting to observe the group struggle with this seriously ill defined task (especially if, as in this case, the group is primarily comprised of left brain engineers). On review, all of the participants reported feeling fearful around this task, outside their comfort zone and worried about whether or not they could pull it off. Of course, they did pull it off and they always do and the review explored whether or not the success was despite of or because of their fear.

Perhaps it is both, because the fear and discomfort requires them to go into a creative zone and to overcome the fear. The clever ones amongst our clients realise that the task we give them is both a learning exercise and the real task and the very clever ones acknowledge that learning only occurs when we are to some extent uncomfortable. Indeed being comfortable means, by definition, that we know what is going on around us and if we know that then we cannot be learning.

So one of our challenges in helping people learn, and one of your challenges in learning, is to become comfortable being uncomfortable. I’ll say that again, we need to get comfortable being uncomfortable, because the only place where learning occurs in the uncomfortable zone. Not so far that panic sets in, but so far that our brains have to go somewhere new to invent ways of handling the situation. Now we could run away from the situation, but that would neither get the task delivered nor create learning. Or we could resist, and that might create a different sort of learning with good facilitation but it would simply get in the way of getting the task done. So effective learners accept the situation as it is, recognise the value of their own discomfort and working on themselves with others to create effective solutions. It is in this uncomfortable zone that creativity can really happen, and after all what is learning if not creating new neural pathways?

So, if you want to be a lifelong learner then maybe you should be on the lookout for opportunities to make yourself uncomfortable – do new things, go to new places, read new books, talk to new people… Face your fears, whatever you choose to do just push yourself every now and again into that zone of discomfort knowing that when you look back you will be able to discover some learning. No risk, no reward.

PS I have just come across a short interview with Ed Schein on this topic – thanks to my mate Wynn Rees for alerting me to his work on this subject.

Metaprograms – Towards or Away From

Geoff Roberts change, choice, flexibility

Donkey with stick and carrotIn yesterday’s post I thought about whether or not we see the world as full of problems to avoid or opportunities to take. I also mentioned that there was a link to metaprograms dealing with Towards or Away From motivation.

I have spent a lot of my career dealing with change at both corporate and personal levels and can now easily recognise two different types of thinking when faced with change. There are those who look at situations and can readily list all the problems that we currently have and perhaps how the change might be able to help solve them – their motivation is to move away from problems. On the other hand there are those who will look at the situation and will be primarily motivated by the wonderful bright new world into which we are sailing – their motivation is primarily towards the future.

Away From or Troubleshooting thinking is great at identifying what is currently wrong, what might go wrong in the future and how we might prevent previous problems recurring. Those who process in this way tend to be risk averse, to excel in a crisis situation and to be good at making contingency plans. Because they are so good at this, there is a risk that sometimes they identify problems that aren’t actually there and fight fires that don’t exist or don’t need putting out. They can slow down change and sometimes this is helpful because the towards thinker can become a bit gung ho.

Towards thinking is typified by the person who still smiles even when they are up to their neck in the crocodile filled swamp. This type of thinking is extremely future focused, concentrating on achieving goals and positive thinking. However these thinkers can be so enthusiastic that they overlook actual or potential problems and pitfalls and need an away thinking colleague to complement their approach.

Perhaps you will do both of these, although experience indicates that it is rare for someone to excel at both types of thinking, or perhaps you sit closer to one end of the scale than the other. Remember that both types of thinking are helpful, the towards thinking provides the enthusiasm and drive to move forward and the away from thinking provides the caution necessary to avoid the towards thinker falling down a dirty great hole that they just didn’t see because they were focusing on their goals.

So here’s the exercise – think of a change that you would like to make. Now list two or three current problems that the change will solve and one or two potential pitfalls that you will need to be aware of. Next list three or four compelling reasons for making the change, three or four improvements that will be recognisable once the change has been made. Using both types of thinking gives you a more comprehensive view of the situation.

Do you see problems or opportunities?

Geoff Roberts choice, flexibility

Mug with writing "problem or opportunity"I got a very short e-mail from a colleague first thing this morning; all it said was “Can I meet you for a coffee this morning?” Now this colleague is generally very upbeat and positive, so what was it that resulted in my first thought being “I wonder what’s wrong?” Perhaps it was the sparseness of the e-mail; perhaps my recent history with the organisation for whom she works (which has not been happy) predisposes me think of problems rather than opportunities; perhaps I even have a broader disposition to believe that people are more likely to contact me when things are wrong than when they are right.

I admit to being a bit of a Mr Fixit, whose first thoughts on being presented with a problem are often “Do this, do that, do the other” rather than “Well what do you think the options are?” A constant challenge of my, and no doubt others, coaching practice is to avoid this tendency to offer solutions and simply to sit and listen, asking good questions and reflecting the opportunity to solve the problem back to the client.

It turned out that the meeting presented both a problem and an opportunity. A problem because we are losing another key member of staff, and opportunity because its offers the chance to re-examine our management structure and the roles and responsibilities of the senior staff in the organisation.

Today’s challenge to you is to think about your default position when somebody contacts you or makes an announcement. Do you default to thinking about all the problems, challenges, all of the negatives about the situation? Or do you default to thinking about the communication more positively, looking for opportunities and believing that what you are about to hear has the potential to be all for the good?
There is a link back to last week’s topic about metaprograms because a further pair of metaprograms relate to whether or not we tend to move away from pain or move towards pleasure. I will write about this “Towards/Away From” pair of metaprograms in a future blog.

Leadership in the middle

Geoff Roberts change

LeadershipI posted a week or so ago about that challenge of becoming a leader, commenting how effective leaders become more of themselves rather than copying someone else. The rest of the programme caused me to wonder yet further.

The whole programme concentrated on iconic leaders in industry and politics. This is fair enough and I do not want to deny the role of such leaders. However, the majority of leadership roles sit much ‘lower down’ in organisations and I would love more attention to be paid to leading in/from the middle of an organisation.

Every team and department has its leader, every social club, every boozing party, every sports team… – and that leader faces many challenges familiar to the iconic heads of the organisation. Indeed, one might argue that, because they have to deal with their own bosses as well as team members, they have bigger leadership challenges.

Very few of us will ever reach the dizzy heights of Prime Minister or Chair of Marks & Spencer, yet many of us will face leadership challenges as we try to take others with us on our journey. Many of the attributes and capabilities are likely to be the same, but how does leadership from the middle differ? I will be looking out on this topic over future months, expect to hear more…

Skiing and a lesson in excellence

Geoff Roberts change

Downhill skierI have spent the last half-hour watching the men’s downhill skiing from Kitzbuhel. Now I used to be a passable skier before I got fat and unfit and have skied several of the mens’ downhill courses around Europe; so I have some idea of how difficult it is and remain awestruck that these guys approach 80 mph, skiing in 2 min something that used to take me 10. The whole experience set me thinking about what it is that makes us experts at something.

Other writers have suggested that in order to become world-class at something we must practice for at least 10,000 hours, what I know is that practice gets me closer to perfection. I also know, as do even world-class skiers, that every now and again I will fall off, make a mistake that might even prove catastrophic for the particular performance in which I am engaged. What I also know from my own experience is that if I am not falling off occasionally then I am not at the edge of my ability and am therefore unlikely to be learning anything. I am reminded of one of the key beliefs of any effective learner “no failure only feedback”.

The effective learner reframes failure as an opportunity to learn something. They look on failure positively, as a demonstration that they still have more to learn. The ineffective learner says to themselves “Well that shows that I cannot do that, I don’t think I’ll try again”.

I guess one of the highlights of my skiing career was one day when I tagged along behind a group of instructors who appeared to be going home. About half a dozen of them were skiing in line down the shortest route home, which was of course one of the most difficult. I can still bring to mind the memory and feelings of almost suddenly being at the bottom of one of the most difficult slopes I have ever been on and wondering how on earth that happened. Well I think it happened because I had belief that the instructors in front of me knew what they were doing, belief in my own ability and commitment to the task in hand (rather than being diverted by “might be”s such as “I might not be able to make this turn”). I recall just skiing. Some would call this being in the zone. However you label it I do know that I simply trusted my body to do what I knew it could do and somehow or other got my brain out of the way. Timothy Gallwey would talk about conquering the Inner Game.

So, here is a challenge for you – next time you face one of those really difficult tasks, one of those that you are not sure whether you can really do it, just throw yourself into it with the belief that you have all the resources you need in order to complete the task superbly. Just let it flow.

Metaprograms – Sameness or Difference

Geoff Roberts Uncategorized

brain, metaprograms

The last in this short series of blogs about metaprograms explores ways of thinking that notice the sameness or difference in the world.

Until a few years ago I had lived in the same house for 26 years and most of those years my next-door neighbour had gone to the same Mediterranean island for the holidays. Not only had they gone to the same island, they had gone to the same hotel during the same two weeks of the year and it also turns out that many of the same people were in that hotel when they got there. I just couldn’t understand this, I had rarely been to the same country on holiday twice and when I did go to the same country it was to very different parts to that I had visited previously. I have no objection to going on holiday with people I know, and what I find really interesting is meeting new people and doing new things is trying new phone.

That same neighbour had the same job from almost all of those 26 years, whereas I had a new job every two or three years, including one major career change.

When you think about your team, what types of thinking do you need? Is the team charged with developing and implementing a radical new future with no reference to the past or are they opening the 475th Starbucks, with exactly the same layout and stock as the previous 474?
When you are selling change, some of your audience will want to know the ways in which the future is going to be the same as the past and others will want to know how the future is going to be different to the past. Effective communication is addressing both of these audiences.

Hidden Resources have deep expertise in metaprograms, why not ring Suzanne and see how we can help?

Metaprograms – Compete or Collaborate

Geoff Roberts Uncategorized

Brain, metaprogramThis week we’re looking at people’s thinking preferences-those inborn (or perhaps learned – that’s a different blog!) filters that influence how we think about and subsequently act in the world. We know that everyone is different, and an understanding of metaprograms is one way in which we can start to understand what might lie behind those differences. Today we will explore the extremes of collaborative or competitive thinking.

The construction industry is well known for its competitiveness, contractors shaving pennies of prices in order to win business. How difficult was it for them when many of the big clients decided that the most effective route to high quality and low costs was for clients, consultants and contractors to work together, not only within an individual project but across projects that may have different consultants and contractors? The move towards collaborative working in major construction projects over the last 10 to 15 years has been and continues to be seriously constrained by the fundamental competitive mindset of those involved.

Let me be clear, I have no problem with competition or collaboration in the right situation-I cannot see Olympic sprinters collaborating to produce the lowest overall time of all competitors added together although we can and do members of cycling teams collaborating for the benefit of their star rider.

What might your predisposition be? Do you seek opportunities to work with other people inside and outside your organisation? Are you an active networker always on the lookout for opportunities to help each other? Would you rather work with others in a team than on your own? Are you constantly on the lookout for how you can not only achieve your goals but help others achieve theirs as well? If so, then you exhibit collaborative thinking.

Another position in the spectrum might be that you find yourself constantly competing with yourself to do better than before, regardless of what other people are doing. Or maybe you are driven to beat others, perhaps regardless of the cost because after all’ it’s about winning not making friends’. You are likely to look towards getting your own needs met regardless of anyone else.

If you have people with these different ways of thinking working for you, you might easily see how you would need to do different things to motivate them. The collaborator will value opportunities to work in a team for the greater good, the competitor would want challenging personal goals

So, now might be the time to consider your own thinking and how that might be similar to our different from those of your colleagues and the implications of that how you are working together.

Suzanne Wade at Hidden Resources can help you to learn more about metaprograms, she can also offer you an great pyschometric exploring how you ‘rate’ on the ‘Top 15’.

Metaprograms – Conforming or Challenging

Geoff Roberts Uncategorized

Brain, metaprograms

More exploration of metaprograms today to help you understand yourself and others more thoroughly and so be able to manage better. Today we are looking at whether your basic thinking stye is one that Conforms or Challenges.

Conforming thinkers can be flexible and adaptable, they will flex and adapt to match the culture of the organisation or team where they are working; they avoid confrontation and might agree superficially but then fail to implement the agreement.

On the other hand the challenging thinker is likely to be overtly confrontational, constantly pushing the boundaries; they dislike being told what to do and can adopt high risk approaches to achieving their objectives. They can exhibit an intriguing habit of saying ‘no’ in the first instance to any suggestion (because of their initial inclination to challenge) before changing their mind and saying ‘yes’ on reflection. They can be perceived as argumentative and can be difficult to manage, however this is the sort of thinking that is fundamental to achieving change. The, former is happy with the status quo, the challenger is forever looking for something different.

If you want to learn more about metaprograms, perhpas by completing a pyschometric exploring how you ‘rate’ on the ‘Top 15’ then contact Suzanne Wade at Hidden Resources.

Metaprograms – Detail or Strategy

Geoff Roberts Uncategorized

Brain,metaprograms

Here’s another great metaprogram pair that, when you appreciate and understand it, will help you become more effective as an individual and part of a team.

A close friend of mine was telling a story about how she learned to manage the new boss who came her way some years ago. She clearly had a great relationship with her old boss, to whom she took her ideas and was generally given the nod to get ahead and implement them. What a surprise to find that her new boss was not as amenable and constantly came back asking nitpicking questions about her proposals. There was a risk that all these nitpicking questions could be interpreted as a lack of trust, however my friend knew different and she was familiar with the different ways that people thought, in particular how detail conscious thinkers differed from strategic or big chunk thinkers.

Her old boss was happy to hear the general idea and recognise how it fitted into the long-term plans; when thinking about an idea they wanted to be presented with a few bullet points that included how the proposal fitted into the broader context of the business. The old boss’ preference was for strategic or big chunk thinking.

Along comes a new boss who was more tempted by details; who needed bite-size chunks and to be told exactly how the proposal would be implemented and exactly how it contributed to the broader picture. This new boss became frustrated when such detail was not available and, perhaps not surprisingly, would generally not agree to my friend’s proposals going ahead.

So this pair of metaprograms has detail conscious thinking at one extreme and strategic thinking at the other. The detail thinker being frustrated by the strategist and a strategist being bored by the detail. Where do you sit? And what about your boss, your team members?

Until I understood about this stuff I used to treat everybody the same, and most likely to assume that what they needed, how they thought, was the same as me. I now find myself actively thinking, does this person require 10 bullet points or a 10 page report. My flexibility in meeting other people’s needs improves my chances of achieving my goals. The person with the most flexibility is most likely to get what they want.

We can help you learn more about metaprograms. Have a look at Thinking Styles.

Metaprograms – Internal and External Reference

Geoff Roberts Uncategorized

Brain - metaprograms
Yesterday I talked about Self- and Others-referenced thinking, today I would like to explore another Metaprogram in that same arena. Today I will talk about Internally referenced thinking and Externally referenced thinking.

In a prior existence I was responsible for a team of people who went round collecting samples of tapwater for analysis on behalf of our water company. The job was pretty straightforward, you took a van with a load of bottles and a list of addresses out in the morning, filled the bottles at the designated addresses and delivered them to the laboratory in the evening. (Actually it was slightly more complex than that, you needed to fill the right bottle the right premise but basically it was a fairly mechanistic straightforward job – and rewarded appropriately). Every night one of the samplers, let’s call him Bill, would bring his samples back and look for myself or his immediate supervisor to check that he had done the right thing today – even though he had been doing it for years and knew exactly which bottles to fill and how to do the job. At one time it used to frustrate me that I had to give Bill a pat on the back every single day, especially when compared to Julie who just got on with the job and sometimes, perhaps often, did not tell us about the changes that she had made to the schedule. We knew Julie would just get on with the job, but occasionally we had to pull her up because those changes were important – the records had to be right and we had to be sure that appropriate samples have been taken.

As soon as I discovered internal thinking and external thinking metaprograms all became clear. Bill had a very strong external thinking metaprogram; he needed feedback, he needed help in deciding what to do when he wasn’t able to take a sample from a designated points; his way of deciding whether or not he had done a good job was to ask others.

Julie, on the other hand, had a strong internal thinking metaprograms. She set her own standards, she was not very interested in feedback from other people, she was quite happy making decisions on her own and she was always right (even when she was wrong).

Do either of these extremes ring a bell for you, or perhaps people you work with for? Again, there is a spectrum and we can all exhibits tendencies to either end of the spectrum although we may well have an overall predisposition to operate closer to one end of the other.

Once I knew that Bill just needed that daily reassurance, it was a couple of minutes a day to keep him happy. Similarly, once I knew that Julie was happily changing the sampling regime without contacting anyone, we needed to explain to her how important it was to make sure that the records were accurate and samples taken appropriately. An understanding of metaprograms probably saved both of them their jobs – and me a lot of heartache.

If you want to learn more about metaprograms, perhpas by completing a pyschometric exploring how you ‘rate’ on the ‘Top 15’ then contact Suzanne Wade at Hidden Resources.