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.

How to become a leader…

Geoff Roberts Uncategorized

Yesterday afternoon I was listening to a programme on Radio 4 about the development of leaders. The programme had the inevitable leadership coach who not only claimed that he could make anyone into a coach but that he could do so in a single day! On hearing this I fluttered between being hopping mad and dismayed. The dilemma was resolved to dismay alone when he suggested to the interviewer that she can become a better leader by modelling herself on someone she admired – Winston Churchill in this case.

Well, I am all for modelling – indeed this forms a core part of some of what we deliver – and would even agree that we can learn lessons from others in leadership positions, whether we admire them or not (it might be sacrilege to say so, but that bloke Hitler knew a thing or two about organising mass support and even though I was fundamentally opposed to much of Margaret Thatcher’s policy I certainly recognised her leadership abilities).

When I examine the many leaders I have admired over the years, and you can create your own list, I find that some are outspoken and some are quiet, some are highly numerate and some are almost numerically illiterate, some did extremely well at school and some left with no qualifications, some could do every job that their subordinates were required to do and others would barely know one end of a factory from another… The one and only common attribute that these leaders had was integrity – that centredness that allowed them to consistently say what they meant and mean what they say, do what they say they would do when they said they would do it and to be willing and able to explain themselves. These people had a deep knowledge of their own values and motivations and lived them out daily; they recognised that they were not always the experts on a topic and valued everyone’s inputs even when that input challenged their own way of thinking, above all they exhibited a humility akin to that propounded in Greenleaf’s exploration of Servant Leadership.

My own reading of the path to great leadership is that yes it is possible to learn some of the behaviours necessary to act effectively as a leader but learning those behaviours alone cannot make a true leader. True leadership comes from inside, it comes from becoming more of oneself. Richard Branson did not succeed by following Margaret Thatcher, she did not lead by following Winston Churchill, he did not lead by following Gladstone and none of them would have been appropriate role models to Nelson Mandela.

If you want to be a leader learn to become more of yourself.

Twixtmas – Day 2

Geoff Roberts Twixtmas

You can transform your personal happiness by doing a five-day work out during the Twixtmas break – the period between Christmas and New Year. By following some easy-to-do ‘happiness workout’ tips you can make yourself happier, ready to step into 2011 with more optimism and energy.

Today’s assignment –  Write about something good you have done for someone else.

For me, there is a risk of being self-serving by writing about what I have done for others, a risk that I write about something that I think I have done when the recipient has a different view. In some of our trainings we explore the parallel concepts of “Self- or Others-Focus” Some who thinks or acts in a Self-Focussed way is primarily concerned about the implications for them personally of any situation, the Others-Focussed approach is more concerned with the impact on others than on themselves. I admit to being largely self-focussed and am a fan of the psychologies that suggest that ultimately we are all self-focussed, with even others-focussed individuals acting at some deep level to satisfy a self-focussed psychological drive (at a simple level you might think of this as doing things for others because it makes you feel good).

Anyway, what good have I done for someone else? During the ‘volcano crisis’ in early 2010 when flights around Europe were cancelled for several days I was ‘trapped’ in France and needed to get back for a client. I was formulating a plan to hire a car, drive to La Manche, get a ferry across… when I met a couple who were in a similar position (they were staying with someone for whom my sister cleans) and also needed to get back. Without hesistation I offered them a couple of seats in my car if they could get themselves a ferry crossing. The plan came off perfectlyand I was delighted to subsequenlty receive a contribution to the costs and to find that my generosity was being talked about in France. Sometimes, life just feels good.

So, what are you going to write about?

The breakfast of champions

Geoff Roberts change

All the recent media coverage of Wikileaks, Vince Cable’s indiscretions, a recent reminder of the Gordon Brown ‘bigot moment’ and those of footballer’s wives left me thinking about standards of behaviour in those who are perceived as leaders/role models.

It seems to me that what is lacking here is straightforward integrity. I quite like the following definition:

Integrity as a concept has to do with perceived consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcome.

I want/need to know that when my boss says something she means it and will not express a different opinion to someone else behind my back. Anyone with pretentions to leadership surely needs consistency as one of their core attributes. Over a long career there was many a time when I disagreed with my various bosses, but the better ones were consistent and also respected my right to disagree. If your boss wants you to jump off the end of the pier (or indeed you want your followers to do so!) then I need to be confident that they are asking it becasue they really cannot see any alternative not because it feeds some personal agenda of their own.

By being duplicitous she is not only undermining my own and others’ belief in them but also setting up tensions in their own brain. It’s a bit like the idea that it’s easier to tell the truth than a lie, because then you only have to remember the truth instead of which lies you told to whom.

I have heard the line a few time recently “Well, haven’t we all at some time or another whispered under our breaths or out of earshot of the subject that they area a bit of a ******” Well, some say that such a comment lost the last election for Labour, that and unguarded comment could well lose Vince Cable his Cabinet post…  What I say is that one of my guiding principles been “if you are not prepared to say it to their face then don’t say it behind their backs”

So next time you find yourself commenting on someone’s behaviour behind their backs, perhaps you could ask yourself “Am I prepared to say this to their face?” If the answer is “No” then perhaps you need to question yourself about what’s stopping you – after all, feedback is the breakfast of champions and isn’t it part of a leader’s job to grow champions?

CIA – not the Central Intelligence Agency!

Geoff Roberts Uncategorized

A friend of mine is due to fly in to the UK from Germany today – snow permitting (that’s snow in Germany, they had a big dump shortly after we left on Wednesday). Will she get here? Will the snow close the airport or the roads to it? Will there be a delay? All these questions we have met before, and will no doubt meet again.

Now I know my friend is not one of those passengers who will spend the day before fretting over whether or not they will make it, or use time at the airport shouting at staff to ‘get things sorted out’ if they are delayed – she knows better than to stress herself over stuff she cannot change.

One of my favourite TLAs is CIA; it’s a favourite because in my context it does not stand for the Central Intelligence Agency. I find it helpful as a way of responding to what happens around me. I ask myself, “Can I…”:

Control the happening? – in which case take that control and make it happen how you want it to.

Influence what might happen? – in which case choose whether or not to use your influence.

Accept what is happening? – if you cannot Control and choose not to Influence, then you really must accept what is happening and get on with it.

Remember that Influence is always a choice; we write to our MP, we go on the ‘million man march’ against the Iraq War, we explain our predicament to the airline checking receptionist, we ‘suggest’ which restuarant to go to, a little man weaves his own loincloth before walking across a whole country making some salt and ultimately getting the British out of India. Everything is influenceable, it’s up to you to decide where to put your limited resources and whether or not the possible change is either likely and/or worth the effort.

So, how stressed do you get by events that you cannot change (snow?) or choose not to influence?