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.

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 3

Geoff Roberts Twixtmas

Twixtmas campaigner and GREEN director, as well as my great friend, Andy Green said: “Arm yourself with pen and paper and make some time during the Twixtmas break to give yourself a five-day happiness work-out. Expressing your appreciation and thinking about the positive aspects of your future, or even writing affectionate things, have been scientifically proven to work and make you feel better in yourself.”

Day 3 Write a short email or letter to someone who you like or care for. Why not tell them how good they are and why they are important to you?

Dear L,

I would love you to read this and think about it. You are wonderful; you are intelligent; you are good looking; you can be thoughtful and funny; you are unique; you are and will always remain your own woman.

Always remember that your mum and your dad love you more than you can imagine – they both want the best for you, to be successful and, probably above all, safe. Whatever they say or do to you or for you is done with that in mind – you might not always like it but they always mean well, and perhaps you are now starting to realise that just occasionally they have a point and maybe even do sometimes know best 🙂

As for me, well I never could and never wanted to be anything other than a good friend. I never could and never will replace your dad although I will be here for you when you need someone to talk with, someone to ask for help or even a shoulder to cry on. Friends do not always agree, yet the mark of true friendship is a willingness to let others have their own opinions and ways of doing things without falling out.

Life is full of challenges and struggles, and of delights and disasters – those are where we learn to be strong and become ourselves.  You can have anything you want when you work for it – decide what you really want and go for it; always be willing to ask for help, we will all support you all the way.

Live, love and laugh,

Geoff

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?

You can only join the dots looking backwards

Geoff Roberts change

I have just been reading an address by Steve Jobs to Stanford University and was especially struck by this quote:

…you can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future.

Perhaps the more academically inclined amongst us might call this ‘post-hoc rationalisation’

It’s certainly my experience that I can often string a convincing story together about what happened despite those happenings being unplanned. Now what I am about to say may well be blasphemous to those who worship at the altar of Change Management Theory (and I too have a Masters’ degree in the topic!) but in many years of leading change I do not think I have ever seen a successful change process follow any of these theories. Oh yes, in general it pays to create your Compelling Vision before your Guiding Coalition – and sometimes the other way round!

Shortly after finishing my Masters my then boss asked “What was the most significant thing you learned on the course?” My response seemed trite at the time, yet the more experience I gathered, the more significant it became. I was fortunate that I was leading the process facilitation team for a major organisational change effort whilst I was doing my Masters and my response was that “I have learned that practice is more important than theory and that in practice you have to do what you can, where you can, when you can”.

I once wrote a paper that described in wondefully rational terms how our long-term success (over a 10-15 year period) could be attributed to overlapping cycles of change, each starting before the full benefits of the previous cycle had been realised. It was pure post-hoc rationalisation – the paper implied some form of ‘master plan’ which never existed. We did what we could where we could when we could. We joined up the dots looking backwards.

So than you Steve Jobs for reminding me that all the theory is useful in the planning phase of change and also for reminding me of the reality that things rarely (ever?) go to plan so although the dots might well join up in retrospect, they are unlikely to make the picture that you thought you were making!

Just being there…

Geoff Roberts change

We were working yesterday with a team who were confidently (?) expecting to hear very bad news later in the day. We had a great day planned, the final day of a series over the last few months – but we were not aware of the imminent news until we arrived at the venue. It was clear that what we had planned was unlikely to happen – not only were people less than enthusiastic about the session anyway but their minds were going to be elsewhere…a rapid replanning was needed.
So instead of them coming to us, we went to them in their workplace with all our rapport skills being dragged out of the cupboard. This was one of those situations where it was more important to deal with what they needed rather than what the plan suggested; indeed, it was probably more important to just be there acknowledging and empathising with their concerns than to offer any ‘training’.
Sometimes, and especially in the heat of the moment when significant change is happening, that’s all we can and need to do – just be there and empathise. This is a really important message for ‘change professionals’ and personnel/HR people who, because of their frequent exposure to the processes of change, risk becoming inured to the personal challenges faced by individuals at such times. I was reminded of something that a very wise colleague of mine said about dealing with change, he said that we needed to be “tough on the issues, gentle with the people”. We need to make a decision and be clear about the reasons and that a decision has been made, then we MUST treat people as individuals with individual concerns and responses to the change they face; we MUST treat every individual with respect and help them deal with the change they face at their own pace and in their own way.
Sometimes, just being there is what is needed.