A635.3.3.RB_LeeDarrell - 50 Reasons Not to Change/The Tribes We Lead

I am a huge fan of TED Talks. You can scroll through the history of my blogs and see how many I have referenced in the past. I first discovered them a couple of years ago on a show called “The TED Radio Hour” on NPR and found out that it was in a Podcast as well so I subscribed and now I listen every week on my commute (along with “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me” and “Serial”, of course). After a couple of months of listening, I started to actually visit the website and now I watch about two hours-worth of talks every week. (By the way, I thought at first that it was just a guy named Ted that set them up but it is actually an acronym that stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design.) One thing that is great about them is that they provide powerful content by streaming relevant content into a compact time slot. I was talking to a producer earlier this week who is developing a series on the history of the financial collapse and rebuilding since the terrorist attacks of 2001 and he has realized that millennials in particular love to consume data by having it broadcast to their screens in 15 minute chunks and that is exactly what TED does. I guess all of this is to say that I am pleased to see a talk that I have not only seen but referenced in the past presented as assigned material.

Part of what we are discussing this week is overcoming resistance to change. We were given a short presentation that outlined 50 common objections that many of us may have heard before. The course is focused on Organizational Development (OD) but many of the excuses apply to our personal lives. We throw up excuses such as people not accepting the idea, cost, payout, tradition, etc. Some of these may be valid reasons, particularly when dealing with the use of limited resources. However, there is a common excuse that I have accepted in the past that I may have to rethink. I’m sure that we have all heard this one before. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” (I always imagine my grandpa saying that wearing his big cowboy hat and boots with a pipe hanging out of his mouth. He used to tell us that all the time.) What we have learned so far about OD, though, is that it is a continuous and intentional refining process (Brown, 2011). It doesn’t matter if the system is working. There is always room for improvement. Some may argue that there will come a point where you just can’t improve any more. I used to feel that way. I was like, “If we have been refining and streamlining these processes for years, shouldn’t they be done by now?” The answer to that is that there is NEVER a point of perfection but let’s say that there hypothetically was. Because the world is changing every day and our organizations exist within a changed environment, the way that we interact with that environment would also constantly be in motion so there is still room for growth. Aren’t you glad that there are avant-garde pioneers out there? If not, we would still be using radial engines on our aircraft and using 28.8 baud modems. So I will no longer accept that excuse in my own life. If it isn’t broke, that’s fine. How can we make it better?

The excuses that most grate on my nerves are the defeatist excuses. Two words that I hate – “I can’t”. When people see a challenge as being too great or think that their idea is insignificant, they have given up before they even started. “Organization members may have a psychological resistance to change because they want to avoid uncertainty. Past ways of doing things are well known and predictable, and unwillingness to give up familiar tasks or relationships may cause resistance” (Brown, 2011, p. 152). When we move from the known to the unknown, fear is a natural reaction but fear should never stop us from trying. I like to use the example of David and Goliath. David didn’t say, “I’m too young. He’s a giant. Nobody will pay attention to me if I win. I can’t.” Instead, he went to the river bed and collected 5 stones then went and met Goliath on the battlefield and the rest is history. David went on to become the king over Judah. Here’s the thing, though. This story is so misunderstood. We often here this story referenced in underdog situations. David wasn’t the underdog. Goliath was. David was a shepherd and spent his days in the fields with little to nothing to do. He was constantly toying with his sling. If they had cans back then, he would have practiced lining them up and shooting them down all day. David was deadly accurate with that thing. Also, he knew how to build the momentum with it. Slingers were known to be able to accurately hit targets with lethal force from up to 200 yards away (Gladwell, 2013). David was approaching a lumbering giant that was relying on brute strength but David had a projectile weapon. As they met on the battlefield, David got that sling going with no doubt that he was about to nail his target. The rock released and his squarely in the head. When this happened, Goliath’s skull was fractured and his brain punctured. His death was instantaneous. The reason for collecting the five stones from the riverbed wasn’t because he had any doubt but those remaining stones were there to deter anybody else from trying their luck against him. The bottom line – David knew his strengths and faced that giant with confidence. There was no “I can’t” or “they won’t respect me”. There was just “I will”.

Once we accept change, that doesn’t mean that others are going to accept it with us right away. How do we get others to accept that we are the victors and our Goliaths are about to be taken down? Seth Godin (2009), an author, marketer, and entrepreneur, explained this on the TED stage. By leveraging modern communication technologies, we can all be instantly connected to whatever group we want to find. He joked and pointed out that you can even be connected with Ukranian folk dancers if you wanted to. The internet allows us to connect in what he described as tribes that have a common unifying theme. To lead action, we first have to tell our story then we can connect our tribe. After that, we can lead a movement within our tribe which results in change. Do you remember the ice bucket challenge back in 2014? That was started by a woman named Nancy Frates (2014). Her son was a baseball player at Boston College and a former professional player in Europe but was having some issues with his wrist. After seeing the doctor, it was discovered that it wasn’t a broken bone causing him issues but rather ALS. She took to the internet and discovered her own tribe! She really didn’t do anything but spread an idea and called others to action. Today, from her idea, the ALS Association has raised over $125 million! (I encourage you to watch her story! You can find in below in my references.)

The bottom line is that when we drop the excuses and accept change, we can’t do it alone. We are only one small piece of a much larger whole. By connecting with our tribes and calling them to action, though, we can start a movement! Just imagine what we can accomplish in our organizations and even in the world!

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experimental Approach to Organizational Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Frates, N. (2014, October). Meet the Mom Who Started the Ice Bucket Challenge [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/nancy_frates_why_my_family_started_the_als_ice_bucket_challenge_the_rest_is_history

Gladwell, D. (2013, September). The Unheard Story of David and Goliath [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_the_unheard_story_of_david_and_goliath#t-507590

Godin, S. (2009, February). The Tribes We Lead [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead#t-837746

A635.2.3.RB_LeeDarrell - How Companies Can Make Better Decisions

I recently saw a troop of Boy Scouts at little street fair on the Upper West Side. I started chatting with them a little about their experiences and explained that I was once a Boy Scout myself. They were telling me some about their troop and the Boy Scouts in general. I was just like, “Wow, they have sure changed since I was there”. Even an organization that you would think would be fairly traditional and static such as the Boy Scouts has really been in motion over the years. I think that you would hard pressed to find any organization that is truly static today. As our environment changes – economics, politics, technology, desires, etc. – organizations must evolve. “This evolution is not a ‘nice to do’ – it is key to survival. In other words, those which do not evolve this way will most likely die, sooner or later” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 22). This particular quote refers specifically to the ways in which organizations are led but brilliantly highlights the fact that those that are static will cease to exist (as far as the organizations are concerned at least).

Change in an organization is inevitable and impossible to prevent (without failing). There really are two primary ways to go about these changes. First, they can happen naturally and the organization can shift into a “fire-fighting” mode and try to mitigate the fallout from those changes (Brown, 2011). The other way – the right way – is to consciously decide how to change the organization. Of course, we are now studying organizational development (OD) which is a formal program that brings about change in a planned and systematic manner. Organizational leadership consciously decides what to change and how. We should therefore focus on effective decision-making processes.  

In an interview with Harvard Business Review, Marcia Blenko (2010), leader of Bain & Company's Global Organization Practice, explained how decision-making is the key driver of organizational performance. She explains that there are four fundamental keys to effective decision-making.

First is quality (Blenko, 2010). The fact is that not every decision will be high quality decisions. Fortunately, if we analyze a decision and realize that it was the wrong one, we can alter that decision. I wish that the government would follow this concept. I remember when I was stationed at Ft. Campbell we were supposed to get a new commissary (grocery store). The new site was selected and construction began. As time ticked along, it was discovered that the build site was completely unsuitable and the project was a total disaster. Instead of selecting a new site, DeCA (Defense Commissary Association) leadership could not accept the sunk cost so dumped millions more into altering the site to make it suitable. In the end, it cost $24 million - $19 million over the original budget – and over 3 years to build a new commissary. Think about the quality of that decision! If that wasn’t a government agency, do you think any organization could really recover from such a blunder? That is why we have to focus on making the right quality decision.

Next is speed (Blenko, 2010). We, as leaders, shouldn’t be too quick to rush into our decisions but neither can we delay too long. When we delay, we remain static. We must take the information available then act. Remember, we are focusing on quality as well and we want to make the right decision the first time but we can always alter those decisions if needed. It isn’t quite like jumping out of a plane where there is no turning back. Think of it more like beginning a trip. We set off in the direction that we want to go and, if needed, can alter the course. However, if we don’t even being the journey, we will never get there.

The third and fourth factors to decision-making are yield and effort (Blenko, 2010). Yield refers to the desired result. This shouldn’t be confused with quality. Think of quality as “is this the right decision?” and yield is “are we getting the result that we want?”. Effort goes hand-in-hand with yield in that is focuses on the consumption of resources. If not enough effort is used, the yield will not be sufficient. However, it is possible that so much effort is required to achieve the needed yield that leaders may need to reevaluate the quality.

In a perfect world, it sounds like decision-making would be simple. However, we don’t live in a perfect world. There are a myriad of obstacles to effective decisions (Blenko, 2010). First, we have to consider what our competition is doing. This may rush us to decisions or may cause us to pause and evaluate their results thus leaving us in a static state too long. However, most of the obstacles are internal. Obolensky (2014) noted that complexity within organizations leads to a state of polyarchy. This means that emerging leaders and decision-makers exist at all levels and if the right information does not reach them due to communication with the organization, quality decisions can and will be affected. However, probably the primary obstacle is considering the culture of the organization itself (Brown, 2011). When decisions that are made that contradict the organizational culture, even if it is an “effective” decision, it will not be accepted and effort to implement may outweigh the benefit.

When I was selected for Army recruiting duty, I had to take a personality inventory called The Attentional and Interpersonal Style (TAIS) Inventory. Every couple of years, we have the opportunity to take the inventory again to see how we have changed (if at all). I have taken the inventory four times now and my results have been fairly consistent. (I just took a similar management assessment inventory for this class. The results for the TAIS are a little more in depth but my results were still very similar.) One of the purposes of the TAIS is to allow us, as leaders, to understand our own strengths and weakness when it comes to the way that we relate with others and lead our teams. One of my strengths is in decision-making. I just need basic information to reach a decision and am swift. However, one of my weaknesses is that I have a very low tolerance for those that cannot understand the why of the decision even after it has been broken down. But to me, that why is something that Blenko (2010) may have overlooked in her list. When we communicate why we do what we do and not just how/what we hope to achieve, there is a higher propensity for buy-in from other members of the organization.

Dr. Joe Arvai (2014) teaches decision-making at the University of Calgary. He also provided some amazing advice on decision-making that applies both on the personal and professional level. First, we must account for values in our decision-making. He described our decisions as architecture versus archeology. In other words, we don’t simply uncover our preferences during the decision-making process but rather we use know clues to construct our decision. Furthermore – and this is the most important consideration for any decision, large or small, personal or professional – we must consider the big picture. Even our short-term decisions must support our long-term goals.

Bearing all of this in mind, how do you think that we can apply it where we are in our personal and professional lives right now? For me, I take comfort in knowing that it is okay to make the wrong decision. What I can’t do is remain static.

(Note: The Obolensky references were from the material from a previous class. As I near the completion of my degree, I am continually intrigued by the interlocking web of information that is formed. Everything that we learn is related and the material for each course complements the other courses. Fascinating.)

Arvai, J. [TEDx Talks]. (2014, December 8). How to Make Better Decisions [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ7SAcFp4so

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experimental Approach to Organizational Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Blenko, M. [Harvard Business Review]. (2010, October 13). How Companies Can Make Better Decisions, Faster [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxpg6D4Hk8

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham: Gower.

A635.1.3.RB_LeeDarrell - 21st Century Enlightenment

I remember one time several years ago – probably back in 2007 or so – I was listening to Bill O’Reilly on the radio. I have no idea what the discussion was but I felt compelled to respond so I called in to the show. To get through on one of those shows takes a combination of timing, patience, and luck but somehow, I magically got through and actually got to state my opinion on whatever the topic was. When I was done, Mr. O’Reilly called me an enlightened man.

This is the first week of a new class about organizational change. In it, we are studying organizational development (OD) which “comprises the long-range efforts and programs aimed at improving an organization’s ability to survive by changing its problem-solving and renewal processes” (Brown, 2011, p. 4). OD affects organizational cultural change through the knowledge and application of behavioral sciences. OD is not just about individuals but rather as changing the collective whole. It is therefore fitting that this first blog is about enlightenment as knowledge leads to action.

In a YouTube video, Matthew Taylor (2010), Chief Executive of RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), discusses enlightenment in the 21^st Century and how our society is changing. I might have this saying just a little off but it is often said that the definition of insanity is doing the same things the same way but expecting different results. Because we don’t live in a perfect world and there is constant growth, the ways of thinking and behaving in the past are no longer acceptable. Just think if our society still behaved as we did in the last century, or even how we did the century before that. We would still have racial segregation, there would be no such thing as LGBT rights, and we would not care one iota about issues such as global warming. Pointing out these issues doesn’t mean that our society was less just or immoral in the past. We (“we” meaning humanity as a whole) was simply ignorant to the truths.

With the growth of communications technology, we are discovering more truths every day. Viewing society as an organization, how would we apply OD? To develop – to live differently than we did in the past - we must think differently than we did in the past. Sadly, there are segments of our society that are not willing to change but “21^st century enlightenment should champion a more self-aware, socially embedded model of autonomy that recognizes our frailties and limitations” (Taylor, 2010, 3:18). We must first recognize that we are not perfect so we won’t be able to achieve a utopian world but that shouldn’t stop us from working toward that goal. Since we know this to be true – that we are all imperfect - we are not all going to see eye-to-eye as we work toward a better society.

With this realization – this enlightenment – we can start working together to develop our society.  As Taylor (2010) notes, empathy is equally as important as education to achieving this goal. When we actually try to view our issues from the other side, we can work toward true resolution. “A culture which prized empathy would be one which distinguished the healthy activity of public disagreement from the unhealthy habit of public disparagement” (6:37). Empathy really is the key here. Arthur Brooks (2016), president of the American Enterprise Institute, addressed this in his TED Talk. When we try to look at our issues through the lens of our “opponent” (my word, not his), we begin to find that we are not so different after all and that we actually need differing views to keep our own views in line. Imagine the problems that we could solve if we just truly approached them with empathy! Imagine if we embraced our differences instead of fighting each other on them. But why do we have such a hard time with this? There is a phenomenon known as ideological asymmetries which is the phenomenon of assuming that your ideology is based in love but your opponents' ideology is based in hate (Jost, 2017). When we think that our views and values are not only superior to others’ but that others’ are based on hate, it is impossible to be empathetic! Think of the implications of that in our current political climate. The media almost seems to try to pit us against one another by spinning stories to make it seem that Republicans are evil and hate Democrats. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. As Brooks (2016) points out, when we actually try to view our problems through the opposing lens, we start to see that we pretty much all want the same thing.

Taylor (2010) states that “to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange” (4:10). Ideological asymmetries and a lack of empathy can make that resistance difficult, though, and we will try to justify our stance even when we know it to be wrong. In my opinion, this is probably one of the most common reasons for divorce. Instead of trying to work together as a team, one of the couple deems that the other is just out to be their enemy even when they know that to not be true. Imagine if we stopped justifying the hurtful things that we did to each other in our marriages and other relationships and conducted ourselves in a manner which shows true empathy. If we would truly resist these tendencies to justify our wrongs and work toward together, imagine what we could actually achieve. We could collaborate and support the best ideas and talents (especially within our own organizations) and avoid conflict.

We are clearly evolving as a society. Our eyes are being opened more and more every day as our knowledge grows. As we become more enlightened, we have to understand that we are not going to see eye to eye but when we conduct ourselves with empathy, we start to recognize that we all have the same goals in mind. Thinking of my own situation at work, I can see how this enlightenment would be beneficial to my team that is comprised entirely of non-volunteers. (In Army Recruiting, we have about a 20% volunteer rate and the rest are selected by the Department of the Army. I have an office full of ground-pounders that just want to be out there engaged in the fight.) I am the only one that volunteered to come to recruiting and now I am the center leader. When I manage my team, I wonder if I have really looked at my decisions from a non-volunteer point of view. Do they make sense to someone that doesn’t want to be here? I mean they make sense to someone with a passion for the mission but what about the team members that are doing it just because it is their job? Maybe I can be a bit more empathetic to them. After all, the old ways of managing in the past aren't applicable today. 

Brooks, A. (2016, February). A Conservative’s Plea: Let’s Work Together [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_brooks_a_conservative_s_plea_let_s_work_together

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experimental Approach to Organizational Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Jost, J. T. (2017). Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167-208. doi:10.1111/pops.12407

Taylor, M. [The RSA]. (2010, August 19). RSA ANIMATE: 21^st Century Enlightenment [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo