Taylor Clarke Blog

Resilience for Organisational Change: building capacity for change by Wendy Robinson, Principal Consultant

Taylor Clarke blogger — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:35:44 +0000

Over the last year or so at Taylor Clarke, we’ve been developing a new product offering: Resilience for Change. Given the amount of change we get to see across hundreds of client organisations, we’ve wondered for a long time about how we can help build capacity for change within organisations. By this we mean – how can we help individuals and teams absorb change; and to respond to, cope with, and even grow through and learn to thrive during change?

When you think about it, we human beings actually quite enjoy change, and often bring change voluntarily into our lives (think about the promotions and jobs you’ve gone for, the new house you’ve sought, the challenges you’ve sought out in your life in order to stretch yourself and prove to yourself that you can achieve big things!). We know that lack of control within organisational change can be a hugely debilitating factor. But what else needs to be accounted for, when organisations are embarking on huge change initiatives?

Our research into resilience at work has enlightened us on this.

People vary in the extent to which they have the capacity to be resilient. And, everyone can work on their resilience to increase it. Our early years have a huge influence on our resilience for later in life: risk factors include the adversities we have faced in early life, low socio-economic status, and marital tensions to name but a few. Protective factors include our ability to problem solve, our intelligence, and our ability to form friendships and supportive relationships. The good news is that these protective factors, over which we have control, have more impact on our life course than the risk factors.

Professor Salvatore Maddi conducted a 12 year study of managers and executives at the Illinois Bell Telephone company. This organisation had formed out of a part of AT&T when the telecommunications industry in the States was deregulated. This involved seismic changes for the 450 men and women in Maddi’s research subjects. He discovered that two thirds of his group did not and could not cope with the uncertainties, chaos, confusion, fears for the future; symptoms included negative physical impacts (e.g. increased rates of strokes, heart attacks, increased blood pressure) as well as emotional impacts (e.g. depression, panic attacks, anger tantrums, confusion) and addictions (e.g. alcoholism, drug dependencies). The other third, however, had the complete opposite reaction. They remained healthy and happy, their relationships with others at work and at home improved during the change, and they received excellent performance reviews. In effect, they thrived in the chaos. Maddi identified what he called ‘Three hardy attitudes’:

o Emotional Commitment to do one’s best (through the change) and to help others as well
o At attitude of Control – a belief that one can influence the change in some way
o Facing up to the Challenge – and learning from it.

These resilient people also showed two key skills: (i) the ability to take a broader perspective and understand the change at a deeper level, and to problem solve in a different, innovative way; and (ii) the ability to engage others around them for support, to work through interpersonal conflicts (as these drain us at work), and to maintain social relationships at work and at home no matter what.

When we think of people around us who we instinctively see as resilient, we tend to think of people who:

- have come through hardships having learnt something important about themselves, and gained new skills or awareness, which increase the quality of their life from there on in
- can tolerate a huge amount of adversity with equanimity and often good humour!
- seem to ride the waves of constant change – even enjoying the uncertainty, perhaps taking advantage of uncertainty in order to achieve something which hitherto would have been more difficult

Dr Christine Padesky, a prominent cognitive behavioural psychologist, quotes Nancy Davis’s (1999) research which outlines the ‘areas of competence’ of resilience; we particularly like the Emotional competence which includes a sense of humour; and the Moral competence, which talks to the importance of contributing to society, and reaching out to help others even perhaps when we are struggling ourselves. And finally, the Spiritual – knowing that one’s life matters, having some kind of connection with the rest of humanity – perhaps when we are struggling most with ‘our stuff’.

At Taylor Clarke, we have concluded on a definition of resilience for organisational change:

“The attitudes, skills and strengths, that
enable individuals, and teams to thrive
within organisational change”

We have produced our own model of resilience for change, which is made up of three broad areas:

1. ‘Me’ – my personal resilience characteristics, for example, my self-belief;
2. ‘It’ – the change I’m in, and how I respond to that change, for example, seeing wider perspectives and seeking to find ways round any problems; and
3. ‘Them’ – the importance of others around me when my resilience is being tested, for example, do I have people around me to whom I can turn for support?

And finally, we have developed a toolkit of resources to support individuals, teams, and leaders, in diagnosing resilience capacity, and building on it, in order to support individuals and teams to prepare for, and cope with, organisational change. Part of the toolkit concerns ‘the decision to take control’ and the resultant actions; this is an interesting aspect of resilience, as this decision point is like the fulcrum on which we turn – do we stay stuck, in helplessness, feeling like a victim, or do we work out how we can have an influence, and act, to improve the situation for ourselves and others?

We are also interested in how a strengths-based approach can build capacity for change within people and organisations. As Alex Linley, in his book ‘From Average to A+’ points out, our areas of greatest potential are our areas of strength. Regardless of what your strengths are (and Alex lists at least 60!), and how they relate to the current organisational change, we believe that harnessing these strengths, and giving them more airplay in your day to day life, will boost your resilience and help you thrive in life. Indeed, this area of ‘strengths’ is a key component in our model of resilience (falling under the ‘Me’ area).

In conclusion, we quote CEOs from an Institute of Leadership & Management survey carried out in April 2009*, which explored the personal characteristics these Chief Executives of SMEs most wanted in their middle and senior managers, in a time of recession:-

“Senior managers need drive to keep going in the face of multiple obstacles. They need to keep picking themselves up, and be able to go over, under, round the obstacles and find any way to make things happen.”

“A willingness to keep going when the natural tendency is to stare like a deer in the headlights.”

“The attitude of being able to cope with whatever life throws at them…resilience to keep going when they get really stumped.”

Surely resilience characteristics……!

Our aim in developing our Resilience product has been to offer practical and relevant workshops, tools, coaching etc which will enable managers at all levels to self-diagnose their resilience, and that of their teams, and to be supported in building that resilience, laying down capability for the future, and the changes yet to be encountered. �
If you would like an informal conversation about resilience for change in your organisation, please contact Wendy Robinson on 0141 221 1707 or wendy@taylorclarke.co.uk.

*”Delivering in a Downturn: What Does it Take?” published by the Institute of Leadership & Development, April 2009

Crucial Conversations: Tools for talking when the stakes are high - Book Review by Aileen Jess, Project Management and Research Assistant

Taylor Clarke blogger — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:51:05 +0000

In Taylor Clarke’s Book Club, we read and discussed this engaging and practical book (by Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R. & Switler, A.; McGraw-Hill; 2002) which encourages us to “discover how to communicate best when it matters most”.

Think back to conversations you’ve had recently; how did they feel, what was the outcome, how much do you remember from them, how important were they? These are all things to consider in assessing the effectiveness of conversations, whether they are short and informal or structured and vital. All conversations can be important, but it is these vital or ‘crucial’ conversations that we turn our attention to here. Patterson et al define ‘crucial conversations’ as “a discussion between two or more people where: the stakes are high; opinions vary and emotions run strong”. Within today’s climate it is easy to see how more and more of these ‘crucial conversations’ are having to take place, for example, relating to redundancies or major changes and restructuring, and this may even be a result of past ‘crucial conversations’ not being handled effectively or not taking place at all; therefore it is key that we recognise these potentially difficult conversations and have the ability to handle them well.

When conversations become ‘crucial’ we often react in unproductive ways, saying nothing at all or becoming irate. No doubt we all have memories of reacting in exactly these ways. Patterson et al describe the benefit in slowing our thinking down, inquiring, rationalising and learning to take control in the moment.

The consequences of shying away from these conversations can potentially be huge. Successful people face up to them; this is not to say these conversations are easy, there is a lot to take into account and challenges to overcome, but there are tips, steps and considerations that can help to make these conversations more effective.

We all have our own thoughts, feelings and beliefs, our ‘pool of meaning’ in Patterson et al’s terms. Inevitably we all bring a different ‘pool of meaning’ to the conversations we have so creating a safe place for everyone to discuss their views and come to a ‘shared pool of meaning’ is key for more effective dialogue and decision making. But how exactly can we achieve this?

Patterson et al describe seven principles and the associated skills required to carry out effective crucial conversations. These are:

1. Start with Heart: focusing on what you really want, and don’t want;
2. Learn to Look: recognising your own style, safety problems, realising when conversations turn crucial;
3. Make It Safe: establishing mutual purpose, understanding and respect;
4. Master My Stories: identifying and separating out facts behind the issue;
5. State My Path: expressing your views, focusing on the real issue;
6. Explore Others’ Paths: exploring others’ views, comparing and agreeing;
7. Move to Action: deciding how to make decisions, documenting decisions and actions.

These principles are helpful, but how easy are they to use in practice? In the heat of the moment in a crucial conversation, can we remember all these steps? Can we always plan ahead; do we know when a crucial conversation is coming? Perhaps just raising awareness of what we should be aiming for could be enough to make some difference, as well as rehearsing being open with each other and possibly even practising when the stakes are less high. However, chances are that experiencing these conversations real time will be the most important way to develop the skills required. To make this less daunting, you may be able to break down the elements and work on them in stages, then review your progress and identify the key trigger points for you, how you remembered the various steps and what has worked, or not, in these different situations; all of which should hopefully become more natural over time.
So, it seems clear what we need to do and how we can go about developing the skills needed, but do we routinely face any other challenges that can influence our conversations? For example, the concept of safety makes sense intuitively but seems to require a certain degree of control to be able to achieve, something which we might not all have. Also, it may be relevant to consider the impact of power differentials; does this influence our reactions and feelings of safety to challenge within conversations? Plus, just how big a part does emotion play?

As well as the challenges of being able to skilfully manage crucial conversations, organisational culture and structures can influence how many conversations are actually had and how they are tackled. It is interesting to consider what type of culture is most, or least, conducive for effective crucial conversations; I’m sure we have all heard people say, ‘But, I can’t do that here’, so is in fact a ‘no blame’ culture needed for people to feel safe to have these open, honest conversations, and is this even realistic to expect?

Crucial conversations happen all across the organisation, not just at the top level, and are not always based on 1:1 dialogue; therefore the complexity of handling group dialogue must be acknowledged, do the same principles and skills apply here, is there role conflict, is it possible to get to a ‘shared pool of meaning’ and mutual respect?

Overall, the ability to handle these crucial conversations has been linked to well-being in individuals; could this also be true at the organisational level?

Although a lot of these ideas are not new and this book is based mainly on anecdotal examples, it is easy to read, packages the concepts together in a way that is easy to grasp and offers a simple questionnaire to help identify what aspects need focused on. Plus, tools and resources are explained and provided, for example, mirroring, priming, videos clips and scripts.

So, whether the recent recession has led to the need for more of these ‘crucial conversations’, or if indeed the lack of effective crucial conversations in the past has actually contributed to the recession remains unclear, but undoubtedly we all must become skilled in effective dialogue, especially when the stakes are high, to help move through these tough times and flourish in the future.

Hard times and who’s heard: Managing Survivor Syndrome by Robin Tait, Principal Consultant

Taylor Clarke blogger — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:32:35 +0000

With many organisations in the UK still suffering from hard economic times and redundancies continuing to affect people, it can be hard to devote time to thinking about and listening to, those employees who survive the cutbacks and downsizing. It can be tempting to assume that the employees who remain in the organisation are fine, after all they still have a job, they are the lucky ones, aren’t they? Well that depends on whose perspective you see it from and the individual circumstances they face.

‘Survivor Syndrome’ is a phrase which has long been used to describe the set of shared reactions and behaviours of people who have survived an adverse event. It is now increasingly being used to describe the impact on the emotions and behaviours of employees who remain in organisations where large-scale redundancies have recently occurred.

The traditional symptoms of the syndrome are generally agreed on. They include:-
• lower motivation and morale
• reduced loyalty to the organisation
• higher stress levels,
• lower trust
• increased scepticism about the organisation
• feelings of guilt at surviving the cutbacks
• jealousy of those who left, perhaps with a substantial redundancy package.

It is the effect of these emotions and feelings among remaining employees that organisations rightly fear: they include lower productivity levels, increased absence levels and higher labour turnover. Redundancy programmes are often a response to reduced demand, a need to reduce costs or increase efficiency to get through a period of crisis. Given these goals, the impact of a severe case of survivor syndrome amongst a reduced workforce seeking to cope with an increased workload can be very damaging.

Our own experience of working with organisations that have had to make major redundancies has highlighted some of the issues that impact the severity of the syndrome. These include

• the perceived fairness of the redundancy selection procedure
• how the organisation treats the employees it is making redundant
• the amount, nature and openness of communication during the redundancy process
• actions managers take to help people do more with less after the redundancies have happened.

Looking first at the selection procedure, if it is shrouded in mystery and/or ambiguity, fear and anxiety tend to become the dominant emotions of all employees, including those whose services the organisation is desperate to retain. Where the selection procedure is transparent and, if appropriate, agreed with the trade union or staff representatives, remaining employees are much more likely to accept redundancies as a difficult but necessary measure. They can see it helping to solve the current crisis and safeguard the organisation’s future.

Remember that during redundancies, loyalty to the organisation seems to decrease and loyalty to work teams and colleagues seems to increase. Depending on the nature of the crisis facing organisations they can, sometimes, choose to adopt best practice in terms of redundancy pay-outs and out-placement services. However whatever constraints are present, when redundancies are handled sensitively and professionally, organisations are less likely to lose the respect and crucial discretionary effort of employees who remain.

The way managers break the news to redundant employees is a key part of this issue. Handling redundancies is one of the most difficult of management tasks, fraught with emotion and tension. This task is often done poorly, sometimes appallingly, because managers have little or no practice. Where this happens those who remain will often empathise, and side, with their colleagues, the ‘victims’. In the process their opinion of their employer is likely to suffer further damage. Managers themselves can be scarred by the process and it is important for managers to be trained in, and supported through, this difficult task.

Communication is also a key issue. Employees will probably be receptive to the news that the leaner, meaner ship that will emerge from the redundancy programme is more likely to stay afloat. However these kinds of messages alone are not enough. Individual employees are keen to hear about and discuss their berth, will there be one, what will it look like and will it meet their needs? Employees will be hungry for information and managers simply explaining that there is no news at the moment because…can be a vital part of allaying anxiety and stopping rumour and discontent, precursors of the full blown syndrome, getting out of hand.

Lastly, when the dust has settled managers will often be faced with producing the same amount of work or be expected to deliver the same quality of service with fewer, and sometimes, less experienced people. Paradoxically there are factors that may make this daunting task easier. Whereas a number of experienced people may have left the organisation their departure can free up communication pathways and can offer a chance to re-build relationships with key stakeholders. These may have not been working optimally due to personality clashes or well established, but inefficient ways of working. Much lower staff numbers can force staff to re-imagine how tasks could be completed and some staff members will relish the freedom to do this. Some managers are reluctant to delegate and act as bottlenecks but higher workloads may lead to them having to delegate more. It is our experience that some staff, who were under-utilised or under-valued, will accept the chance to rise to this challenge and deliver innovation and quality as well as being more satisfied at work.

So if your organisation is about to go through large-scale redundancies will it suffer from survivor syndrome? The answer is almost certainly, yes! However the negative effects can be greatly reduced by taking some of the actions outlined above.

�

Leading change in tough times….an opportunity! by Alistair Brown, Principal Consultant

Taylor Clarke blogger — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:34:21 +0000

Every so often in any organisation, whether in the public or private sector, the economy has a habit of delivering unexpected surprises, as with the current recession, which has been unpredictable in nature.
For many organisations this is a swift reminder of the need to take stock and re-evaluate many aspects of their organisation and in particular how they handle change.
While restructuring, headcount reduction, budget cuts can be unpleasant for those involved, it’s not all doom and gloom and smart organisations take the opportunity to step back rather than rush into short sighted “myopic” hastily planned and often insensitively communicated cost cutting exercises. Hasty action often creates more problems longer term which can exceed any short term benefits achieved…..and employees have long memories when it comes to poorly executed change. Its particularly important to avoid the attitude of believing employees “should just be lucky they have a job.” Remember what goes around, comes around.
As both a change practitioner and a consultant, I have experienced and survived two fairly major recessions and have a few lessons learned I’d like to share.
Change is unsettling and stressful for many at the best of times and while these lessons can be applied in less turbulent times, they take on even more significance in times like now.
In no particular order there are five key areas where your approach to change management style may need careful attention:
Review your short term goals and stick to your core fundamentals
·         Riskier new ventures and diversification can be delayed while you focus on improving your core offering as they often involve adding more change demands to an already stretching situation
·         Big challenges and hurdles can be overwhelming so focus more on shorter term goals and “quick wins” that will help in building confidence around the steps you are taking to “ride out the storm”
·         If you have to cut costs do it intelligently, with clear focus, rather than risk “panic” across-the-board measures. Avoid undermining the areas of the business that give you your competitive edge, that will underpin future growth and that are key to delivering short term results.
Don’t risk undermining your hard earned trust and credibility through lack of transparency in your communication
·         Particularly with high personal impact, but necessary changes like redundancies, cut backs and changes to benefits, managers often play their cards very close to their chest and put an embargo on communication for as long as possible. The management rationale is to reduce the risk of negative employee reactions and protracted unrest
·         In reality the workforce can see the signals and sense the bad news coming, rumours are rife and the truth eventually leaks out ….but from the wrong source.However, by pretending all is well and denying the rumours a bigger problem can be created. Life may go on as usual but the very damage management is trying to avoid…and more - in terms of low morale, productivity drops, quality and customer service problems - is already happening at a time when the organisation can least afford it. But the biggest price is the loss of respect for, trust in and credibility of, the management…which will take a long time to rebuild, if ever
·         When the bad news is eventually released and where lay offs are concerned, people then often have to leave the business quickly, with little time to train or handover to the people who will have to absorb some of their workload
·         Often we underestimate people’s ability to handle bad news and deal with the situation in an adult way. If management are more up front about the business challenges and risks to jobs, there is more likelihood that some of the workforce will rally round and try and reduce the impact of change by contributing to other solutions and also hand over responsibilities when they leave with a bit more commitment.
Involve your staff in the change planning process
·         A lot of the stress around change stems from a sense of loss of control and resentment over decisions that impact you, but which you haven’t even been able to influence
·         Involve staff in your thinking and ideas and help them have a sense of genuine “shared ownership” and the more they know the more likely they are to feel empowered to contribute their ideas
·         The above takes up management time and there is the scary element of “slowing down to move faster” at a time when there is pressure to improve financial performance quicker. However, involving staff often helps you make better decisions that people feel more able to support and will pay off in the long run with more of a shared sense of responsibility. People are after all much more committed to changes they have helped to shape
·         Obviously some aspects of the change may not be negotiable, so it’s important to be very clear about what is negotiable and what is fixed, so that expectations can be managed.
“Face to face” dialogue rather than remote mass communication
·         You can’t manage this kind of change from your desk or behind a lectern, people like to see the “white of your eyes” and hear it first hand
·         People’s need for accurate information is heightened at times like this, while the rumour mill is working overtime. If there is a void people often fill it with exaggerated predictions around the necessary tough decisions. Fear of the unknown and anxiety induces speculation
·         Be visible, listen more, welcome the tough questions and arm yourself with a first-hand understanding of any resistance to difficult changes and their true personal impact. You may well be able to reduce the impact of changes and increase employee support through making the right compromises, applying employees suggestions and creating more of a sense of “being in it together”. The more they know, the more they can contribute to local level solutions
·         Seek out the people who will be most impacted by the planned changes and also those who will be the most influential in supporting the changes. If you can win them around, they will bring many others with them
·         Keep ahead of the rumour mill by providing timely accurate information to dispel any scaremongering and help people understand the “true reality” and urgency of the need for change…don’t assume “they get it”! Be forthright but take your employees into your confidence…..they won’t thank you in six months if you are slow to react and the impact is higher
·         Use the insights gleaned through regular open dialogue to sharpen up the messages delivered through other communication channels and ensure they cover what people actually want to know rather than what you feel you need to tell them. The more open, informed, factual, clear and frequent your messages are, the more impact your communication will have.
If you need to reduce headcount, be mindful of the lasting impact on those remaining
·         Typically, they will be taking on additional workloads, have to learn new skills, adapt to new relationships and ways of working. All of this can be very uncomfortable, disruptive and stressful and way out of people’s “comfort zone”
·         Some stress can be positive but if the demand exceeds people’s ability to manage and cope you leave yourself wide open to increased absenteeism, retention problems, growing conflict with management…and a bigger problem
·         Make sure you recognize the effort and achievements of those who rise to the occasion and contribute positively to the recovery
·         See the article on “survivor syndrome” also included in this section for further advice on how to support those who remain with the business.
Get ready for moving on positively
·         A recession often serves to highlight the weaknesses in your business and can serve a positive role in stimulating more urgency around the need to address them than is possible in more stable conditions
·         Don’t stagnate and just focus on reviewing and reducing costs; also look at improving the business, developing your staff, refining your processes and understanding and addressing your customers differing needs in a recession
·         Support and coach your staff in how to deal with the impact of change and become more resilient to help you grow your capacity for change and make the transition to the new ways of working required.
·         The likelihood is that there will be no “back to normal” so use the down time to reposition your business to adapt to the changes in your markets that bring new opportunities.
So, to summarize, there are opportunities to use a recession to your advantage, question your old assumptions and capitalize on the urgency for change to prepare your organisation for recovery through an open and inclusive approach to leading change and a sensitivity to the impact of change on your people.

MBTI and Change by Bill Roxburgh, Principal Consultant

Taylor Clarke blogger — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:19:27 +0000

In conceptualising change within organisations it can be tempting to think that people experience change in a similar way. Theories of change are useful in giving us an overview of the stages which large groups of people could be expected to go through; however they can also mask the differences which individuals exhibit during change - differences in their reactions, their needs, their behaviour, and the contribution they want to make during organisational change. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) gives us a robust basis for talking about individual differences during change and transition.

As an illustration, let us take two personality Types from the possible sixteen offered by the MBTI, and to stretch the point, let us take two widely differing Types. As you read, reflect on how you would manage the two individuals - the different approaches, if any, you would take. Firstly, imagine the type of person who has built up her expertise carefully over the years; her knowledge and competence is a real strength - she is seen as the backbone of the organisation, reliable, organised and logical (Person A).

Person B’s strength is his energy, creativity, and warmth. He is stimulated by new people and new ideas. He is known as a catalyst within the team, with his enthusiasm and his ideas for improving the way things are done. He tends to carry others along with him because he is on the look out for others and wants to involve them.

Endings:
Each will deal with the losses of organisational change in different ways. If Person A understands the logic of what is changing and is reassured that her past expertise will be of value in ‘the new world’ she will instinctively understand the realities of what must change and want to make a clean break in order to move on. Person B, on the other hand, will most likely need to talk a lot about the change with colleagues - he is really good at making space for others to talk. His deeply felt values will be to the fore - he needs to know that these are not being violated in what is proposed, and that he has the time and opportunity to view the change from different angles.

Neutral Zone:
Change inevitably brings with it periods of uncertainty; again, it is likely that ‘A’ and ‘B’ will have different needs during this phase, and can bring different strengths to the process. ‘A’ will most likely be frustrated from the lack of knowing and lack of structure - ‘why is everything in such a muddle?’, ‘why is everyone whining and getting emotional?’ To ‘A’, goals, plans, facts are important - ‘why can’t we just get on with it?’, ‘A’ will find comfort in factual, detailed, logical information about the change; she will need to see the communicator of this information as credible in her eyes. When involved in the change, she can bring her strength to bear - that of carving out the detail, and presenting it accurately to her colleagues. ‘B’ meanwhile is going through his emotional rollercoaster - excitement one minute, anxiety the next. His anxiety may well be around the way in which valued colleagues are coping or apparently being treated by the organisation. He will find comfort in the opportunity to be involved in creating the future, involving and informing others. If his strengths are harnessed by the organisation he is likely to be creative in shaping the new vision, and ensuring others feel excited about it.New Beginnings:
Assuming the needs of both are catered for in the transition management, their strengths can shine through in the beginning stages of ‘the new world’. Consider the strengths of ‘A’ in scheduling and structuring new ways forward, and her motivation to get things started. Likewise the enthusiasm and energy of ‘B’ in ensuring everyone is on board, taken care of, and bought in to a new vision.My intention here is not to label people, stereotype them or box them in; after all, theories are merely sets of hypotheses about people (albeit ‘there is nothing so practical as a good theory’). Rather, my intention is to illustrate that we are each different in our approach to change, and we do each have unique talents, which if noticed and valued, can be invaluable resources in the midst of the turbulence of change in our workplaces today. Change is not negative per se - the most resistant people in the workplace are often the most enthusiastic drivers of change in their homes, their communities and in their hobbies. The mismanagement of change in the workplace can lead to negative, energy sapping environments. And the result of this? The change is never actually implemented - the vision does not become reality, the savings do not transpire, the profit does not increase sustainability, processes do not become more efficient. Recognising individuals’ needs and strengths I believe, helps ensure the success of change initiatives.Ref: ‘The Challenge of Change in Organisations: Helping Employees Thrive in the New Frontier’ Barger, N. and Kirby, L. Davies-Black Publishing, 1995.

Brazilian Brainstorming by Laurence Clarke, Managing Director

Taylor Clarke blogger — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:45:59 +0000

Brainstorming has been with us since Alex Osborne coined the phrase in the 50’s. So it really amazes me that we so rarely use it properly.

Years ago when running an Advertising Agency, I came across the problem which I’m sure Alex Osborne had when he thought up brainstorming (he also ran an Advertising Agency). Our creative team just could not come up with any ideas let alone decent ones. We tried scanning magazines and books for inspiration and whilst this often worked, the ideas were often flat and unimaginative. Eventually we tried real brainstorming and the results were impressive. We went for quantity rather than quality and suspended judgement until we had exhausted our creative juices. It was great fun and many ideas came as a result of other’s crazy ideas. In fact, so fruitful were the crazy ideas at stimulating new trains of thought, that I actively encourage people to come up with crazy ideas and then we try and generate more practical ones from them.

Believing that I now knew how to brainstorm, I used it with many groups with pretty good results. However two groups in particular made me review this. After we had generated about twelve ideas for a particular problem the first of these groups had, they completely dried up. No amount of encouragement from me seemed to re-ignite them. In my frustration with the lack of ideas, I demanded that they each take a piece of paper and write down a further four ideas. To my great surprise all ten in the group started writing. Indeed, even those who had not contributed any ideas were now busily writing away. We generated a further 38 ideas and on trying this “silent brainstorming” again, we were able to increase this to in excess of 60. On analysing this, I felt that there were four things at play:

- By writing things down people were accessing a different part of their brains and hence new ideas.

- People get frozen out in standard brainstorming such that they simply can’t think of any more ideas.

- Some social loafing was going on where some people were quite happy to let others do the work.

- Some simply felt their ideas were not good enough or were too embarrassed with their ideas to shout them out.

Since then, I have developed this by using Post-it Notes, where each person in the group is given a pad of Post-its and asked to generate as many ideas as possible, one per Post-it (this is now a popular technique with the big change consultancies). They are then asked to put their Post-its up randomly on a board or flipchart. The next stage is to cluster these into similar ideas or themes and choose the solutions that they are going to pursue. A refinement of this is to have a normal Brainstorm first and then do the silent version. Then you get the best of both worlds.

So what went wrong with my second group? They were using the Post-it process but started to discuss their ideas since a couple felt that the problem as stated had no solution. This is where the rot set in. They now discussed each idea in turn and their critical faculties were going at full tilt. By the end of the session the other group in the room had generated loads of ideas and refined over 10 good ideas and were eager to get started with implementing them. My second group were demoralised and a little embarrassed when they presented their findings of 2 rather prosaic options.

The second group however were only doing what most groups in my experience do when faced with a problem. They get bogged down in coming up with good solutions from the onset thereby stifling the creativity of proper free flowing brainstorming. Also the group had fallen into what I call evaluative thinking where each idea is discussed in detail and immediately evaluated. Most good solutions are discarded because of some small flaw rather than taken as good and ways round the weaknesses found. When you are truly brainstorming you evaluate at the end and move in to what I call comparative thinking whereby ideas are compared with each other to find the best ones regardless of their weaknesses. This approach promotes the choosing of good ideas despite your reservations. You can then work on finding ways round your reservations and in the process greatly improve the solution. This last process of listening reservations and finding ways round them is one of the most powerful I’ve ever used with groups and is great for resolving differing viewpoints as well as improving particular ideas.

So the moral of the story is, if you want teams to generate lots of good ideas and be motivated to action them, make sure you really brainstorm and not just discuss possible solutions.

(We brainstormed the title for this article, lots of ideas, but Brazilian just sounded good. A prize for anyone who can work out what our logic was in using it!!)

Uncover Strengths & Build Resilience with CBT: A 4-Step Model - by Wendy Robinson, Principal Consultant

Taylor Clarke blogger — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:16:46 +0000

I attended a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) Conference on Resilience in May, which I’ve been persuaded by Laura to now write up. Actually, having a nudge to reflect deliberately on a conference is just what I need …I love learning, and I love reflecting, when I have the time to do it, and when I discipline myself to do it. Then I remember what I did really learn, and how I might be able to apply it with clients.

I’m an occupational psychologist, so it was interesting to spend two days with an audience of mostly clinical psychologists (in a lecture theatre holding 800 delegates). I know bits’n’pieces about CBT, but must admit, am not overly attracted to it. However, I do know it’s the only therapeutic approach which carries enough research on it, to be able to ‘prove’ its efficacy in working with clients. Hence, I believe, it’s the only therapeutic approach which is officially endorsed by the NHS.

Anyway, I was interested to know where the world of clinical psychology and CBT was, in relation to ‘strengths’ and ‘resilience’, and whether Taylor Clarke could learn anything from this, either in working as coaches with clients, or in supporting managers to support their people.

Dr Christine Padesky was described in the conference bumpf as ‘one of the leading cognitive therapy presenters in the world, appreciated for her depth of knowledge, compassion, and good humoured warmth’. She has presented workshops with Aaron T. Beck, and was named ‘most influential international CBT therapist’ by the BABCP (British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies).

“We all know perfectly well what resilience means until we listen to someone else try to define it.” (George Vaillant (1993) The Wisdom of the Ego) Dr Padesky took several suggestions from the audience as to our definitions of ‘resilience’ …’bounce back-ability’ was a common theme, ‘the power to come back again to a prior position’, ‘the ability to respond and get through adverse situations’. On the second day she quoted:

“To fall 7 times,
To rise 8 times,
Life starts from now”
(Daruma Doll, 6^th Century)
“Be dedicated
Be persistent
Rise up no matter how
many times we stumble
Never give up”
Founder of Buddhism

I like quotes. They have the power to describe something like ‘resilience’ in a more earthy, or ‘real’ way, than lots of scientific psychological language can.

Anyway, back to the main theme of the conference which was all about ‘uncovering strengths and building resilience’. Dr Padesky presented a four-step model which she has developed with her colleague Dr Kathleen Mooney.

1. Search for the individual’s strengths;
2. Construct the individual’s Personal Model of Resilience (PMR™)
3. Apply PMR™
4. Practice PMR™

Step 1, searching for strengths, fits in very well with the Positive Psychology (PP) approach. I was interested in her take on ‘uncovering strengths’; through demonstrations with volunteers from the audience, she illustrated the conversational nature of this step, and also, the power and simplicity. Being familiar with Martin Seligman and Chris Peterson’s VIA Strengths Survey, and to a lesser extent, the Gallup StrengthsFinder, I was quite taken with this more personalised way of uncovering strengths. I think the advantage of Padesky’s technique, is it’s simplicity, and importantly, the fact that because the words (strengths) have come from the client’s own story and examples and memories, the client fully knows what they ‘mean’. I think it’s possible to have more of a felt sense of your strengths, if these have been worked back from your stories, rather than concluded from taking a 240 item questionnaire. The key thing, in helping people tell their stories, is to find an example of something they enjoy doing. This can be absolutely anything in their lives. For a clinical population, this might include everyday activities, which despite the problems and obstacles faced in life, the individual is still able to carry out and persist with. Hobbies, talents, people we love to spend time with, sports teams we love to follow, little things in our lives which we derive pleasure from, huge things in our lives which we derive pleasure from ….shine the torchlight on whatever area of the person’s life can yield their strengths.

Padesky has adapted Nancy Davis’s (1999) ‘characteristics of resilient individuals’ and uses this as a mental checklist, whilst uncovering strengths in conversation with a client:

1. Physical (e.g. good health …therefore, ‘pick your parents well’!)
2. Spiritual (e.g. having faith that one’s own life matters; sense of connection with humanity)
3. Moral (e.g. helping others whilst under pressure yourself)
4. Emotional (e.g. emotional regulation)
5. Social Relational (e.g. basic trust; ability to make and keep good friends)
6. Cognitive (e.g. capacity to exercise foresight; problem solving abilities; internal locus of control; self-understanding)

Try rating yourself against these six characteristics; say on a 10 point scale, where 1 = ‘I don’t possess much of this at all’ through to 10 = ‘I am strongly resourced here’. Also, rate other people you know – say, pick someone you know who you would generally consider to be ‘resilient’, and one person you know, who you would generally say is not very resilient. (If you’re a coach, do for coaching clients, if you’re a line manager, do for people you line manage, or used to line manage.)

What do you discover? What reflections do you have on this?

Something we noticed was that even ‘low resilience’ people have some areas of resilience – which is good news …it provides hope, and sometimes a place to start work on (assuming you were coaching them). Also, it became evident to us, that there are many pathways to start to work on – many options for building resilience.

To the extent that people have had many obstacles to overcome in life (or at work), they will have shown lots of resilience. Rockwell (1998) refers to the strength, intelligence, insight, creativity and tenacity – of those who have overcome difficulties. This is a reframe. That is, rather than focus on what’s not right, what’s been difficult, what the individual doesn’t now do well, etc. focus on the strengths the individual has had to show, in order to survive and get through this stuff.

Step 2 – construct the PMR™, was again interesting to see in action, ‘on stage’ (and well done to those brave souls, who volunteered to go on stage and talk through a personal problem, or role play a client of theirs!). In essence the building of the PMR™ consists of writing down, for the client and with the client, their - behaviours, coping strategies, emotions, automatic thoughts, underlying beliefs, their stories, heroes, and any symbols or metaphors which occur to them – as they talk about how they overcome difficulties, in the story they have been talking about. The content of the story doesn’t matter so much, it’s the things people say to themselves, it’s the things they do, it’s how they feel, as they face up to obstacles and persist their way through them. E.g. ‘I’ll be damned if this is going to get the better of me’; ‘no matter what, I’ll hold my head high’ etc. The list of potential thoughts, beliefs, feelings, coping strategies is endless. Key things are written down on the PMR™ - using the client’s words, and checking that these are ‘right’, that they fit for the person.

Step 3 – Apply PMR™ - is about applying this set of thoughts, beliefs etc. to the problem faced, and clearly stating the goal (‘to be more resilient in ….(problem area)’). The ‘problem area’ we are most interested in at Taylor Clarke is how people cope with change in their working lives, and how organisations can increase the capacity for change. Many people feel ‘changed out’. How can we all cope better with the amount and type of change? Surely we must call on our own personal resilience to help us with organisational change? And surely we can help others call on their personal resilience to help them cope with change?

Step 4 – Practice PMR™ - is all about constructing some ‘Behavioural Experiments’ in collaboration with the client, to help them go away and use the ideas generated, to help them overcome the obstacles as they face them in reality. So, for example, ‘no matter what, I’ll hold my head high’ …taking the power of that along with it’s associated emotions and memories for me, back into the work environment, in which I’m feeling ‘changed out’. Of course, the power of the technique is in the skill of the therapist (coach) in facilitating the client to identify manageable situations, to start to experiment with more resilient tactics, and over time, to build up to more challenging situations, once the PMR™ has been continuously refined and improved.

A key thing here is to continue to use constructive language, and to endorse the client’s strengths; e.g. if the client struggles, to put her strengths into use back at work, because she finds the back-at-work environment so difficult, this is another example of how she’s persisting, despite the obstacles.

Finally, a few concepts/ideas/quotes I liked from the two days:

- “a genuine smile melts the distance between people” (i.e. it’s good to be human, when we’re working with people, as coaches or as therapists)

- Two ways to quieten the amygdala (e.g. if client is panicky and worried): (i) a human smile (ii) novelty

- You can apply the resilience model to teams as well as individuals

- Resilience is often best captured through stories and sayings

- Saying ‘it’ll be fine’ to those using the coping strategy of ‘defensive pessimism’ won’t work! That is, if I believe something isn’t going to go too well, and I anticipate all the things which might go wrong, and mentally rehearse what I would do …I’m using defensive pessimism. Now, if someone says to me ‘ah, it’ll be fine’ …it’s really not going to help me! What I need is someone to help me rehearse and to understand my anxiety. Defensive pessimism is in many ways a healthy coping strategy, and we probably all do it at some time.

- The importance of Acceptance, for growth and change. I may not like what happened, but if I’m to move on, I need to accept it

- Epstein’s notion of the ‘two minds’; one is rational, and for example, responds well to the language of logic. The other is experiential; intuitive; what we feel in the gut. This part of us responds to image, story, narrative, icons, metaphors. Padesky’s PMR™ aims to embed the experiential – because it’s the client’s words, images, story, which makes it up

- ‘the goal’ when we’re talking about resilience, is not to solve or eliminate the problem, but to be resilient in the face of the problem; the latter can facilitate acceptance of the problem

- We’re all more resilient than we think

- We cast off our resilience e.g. ‘oh, I just got on with it!’ ‘oh, it was nothing!’ …therefore, it’s important to talk about the little things we have done, to fully account for our resilience

- To listen to others’ stories of resilience is great! It’s so much less depressing than listening to the story of what went wrong

- The source of resilience doesn’t have to come from great wisdom, great one-off experiments, etc. it’s in the everyday. (The strengths which got us through past, big, crises, may be better for future, big, crises! Our day-to-day strengths ….are reinforced every day.)

- Resilience is a process; it’s the way in which we experience the journey

Post Acquisition Management and Acquisition - by Alistair Brown, Principal Consultant

Taylor Clarke blogger — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:46 +0000

I recently attended a very useful seminar looking at the pitfalls and success drivers underpinning effective post acquisition integration, as part of our research for a new acquisition related change product we have been working on.

Having personally led a couple of acquisition integrations during my own managerial career, I can tell you it was quite a cathartic experience with many flashbacks…..leading me to reflect on the fact I was attending the programme 8 years too late!

While a lot of the principles and approaches chimed well with our own views and beliefs on managing change in general, there were some very useful insights and pointers that will help us when working with our clients dealing with the people aspects of making acquisitions work.

I was particularly struck by the emphasis on –

- Research suggesting many organisations failure to anticipate and factor in the people and cultural issues early, particularly as part of the pre acquisition due diligence phase.

- The impact that people issues have on failure to deliver on the anticipated synergies built into the premiums paid for an acquisition.

- Retention issues, particularly with middle and aspiring middle management grades, only emerging some 12-18 months after integration once people have “had a look” at the reality of the new regime. Don’t celebrate success too early, transition takes time!

- Identifying your “individual” top talent early at all levels and understanding and addressing the impact of the changes on the people key to your success.

- Taking the time to re-evaluate change readiness/impact once the dust settles within the integrated workforce and investing in preparing key people to lead change with a strong focus on involvement and engagement rather than compliance. This attitude of “slowing down to move faster” in terms of releasing benefits is particularly challenging for senior leaders charged with releasing often over estimated synergies handed down from on high, often from recently departed advisors!

- The use of key measures and reward schemes as a key communication tool to emphasise what’s important and what can wait, rather than overloading the new organisation with unrealistic demands for change when people are adjusting to new relationships and ways of working.

- Respecting cultural differences more when communicating change, keeping cultural alignment assessments simple and regular and asking yourself how important it is for cultures to align in some instances, particularly in the short term.

- Celebrating the past successes of both companies before laying out the vision for the new company

- Recognising that uncertainty is worse than bad news and that sharing failures/bad news builds trust in leadership.

- The need for interim transition leadership and management structures to balance peoples focus the internal/external worlds and the task/people issues

In summary, a very useful day even if some of the delivery was a little didactic in style (Note to self…….) and one which will certainly help to enrich our future client work.

Bringing About Changes In Organisations - by Bill Roxburgh, Principal Consultant

Taylor Clarke blogger — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:14:32 +0000

How do YOU make sense of the umpteen theories and models of organisational change that are on offer? I’m not sure I’d have been able to put a theory or approach or model into a helpful framework or historical context before Birkbeck College introduced me to Chin and Benne. (Not to be confused with Bill and Ben).

Chin and Benne suggest that there are really only three broad strategies for bringing about changes in human systems.

1. Empirical-rational approaches, in which human rationality is assumed. In respect of organisations, the empirical-rational approaches include, at for example, the big or “molar” level, the “classical” business strategy approaches, and Taylorism and neo-Taylorism. At the smaller or “molecular” level these approaches include personnel selection.

2. Normative-re-educative strategies. These assume human rationality, but also take into account the effects of culture on behaviour. Human Relations approaches and Organisational Development belong here, as do the more optimistic advocates of cultural change in organisations.

3. Power-coercive strategies. Here, the application of power (political, economic, moral, etc.) is seen as central. An even broader term is the “contextual” strategy. Contextual strategies have produced a flood of work in recent years. Examples include highly critical views of culture, and accounts that throw doubt on the predictability of plans. There wasn’t a great deal about power in organisations in the organisational psychology literature until recently. It’s hard to see why this should have been so. It’s not as if the significance of power had never been recognised. At least one handbook has been available for a few hundred years, i.e. Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. But there are still plenty of lively advocates of normative-re-educative strategies. Bet you know some? Reference: Chin, R. and Benne, K.D. General Strategies for Effecting Change in Human Systems. In Bennis, W.G., Chin, R., and Benne, K.D. The Planning of Change.

Think of a Leader! By Robin Tait, Director

Taylor Clarke blogger — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:43:30 +0000

A lot of Taylor Clarke’s work has been and remains leadership development. We often use an exercise which we first came across when working with a large public sector client on their major leadership programme a few years ago. The exercise is called ‘Think of a Leader’ and it is, without doubt one of the simplest, yet the most energising and affirming exercises I’ve ever used when working on leadership development programmes. Just give people some time for reflection around the following statement, “think of the best manager you ever worked for?”And then ask two straightforward questions: “What was it that they did that made you think of them that way? How did working for them make you feel?”We normally give people five minutes for so to make some notes and then go round the room asking each person in turn to tell the group about their best ever manager.So what do people say? Well, thankfully for someone who works in leadership development, they say what you’d hope that they’d say. However what makes the stories remarkable is the consistency between people and between groups of people across organisations throughout the UK. Even more interestingly people tell their stories with a level of emotion which is compelling, especially given that in some cases (sadly) they are speaking about a manager who they worked for over 20 years ago.

A number of themes tend to come out of the stories people tell. Looking first at the issue of what their best ever manager did, the quotes below illustrate most common theme that emerges:

‘extended me and pushed me’
‘gave me an opportunity and helped me learn’
‘encouraged me to develop myself’
‘challenged me to do things I never thought I could’
‘shoved me in at the deep end’
‘challenged my own self-imposed limitations’
‘gave me confidence in my own abilities’

Without doubt the most often reported memory I hear is all about the manager having faith in the person, trusting them and helping them realise their potential. Though it’s more than that because it’s helping people see (and experience) that they can do more than they think they can, in some cases a lot more. You really do seem to get what you expect!

I’ve run this exercise more than 20 times and that’s involved over 200 people. No one has ever said of their best ever manager that they ‘helped me get a bigger bonus’, ‘helped me double my salary’ or ‘helped me make a fortune’.

The second part of the exercise is where the emotion comes out. People usually mention feeling valued, feeling needed and respected. They talk about how they really felt a part of something and enjoyed, or loved, coming to work, they say how motivated they felt and then they often tell stories, amazing stories, about the things they did while working for that best ever manager.

One guy I met on the major public sector leadership programme, mentioned earlier, talked about a manager he worked for over 30 years ago. He spoke about how he and his, similarly inspired, colleagues got together and, off their own bat and in their own time, redecorated the rather shabby office where they served the public. He spoke about how he and others had brought in their own spare furniture and carpets to make their work place a better, more welcoming environment for their customers.

You can’t buy that kind of attitude but you can help create it. So, whose best ever manager are you?

Feel free to use any of the information held within our blog but please let us know and acknowledge us. Thank you.