Uncategorized

Desarrollada por los fundadores de nuestra empresa, los Drs. Robert R. Blake y Jane S. Mouton, la gráfica The Managerial Grid de abajo es un marco muy simple que define de manera elegante los siete estilos básicos que caracterizan el comportamiento del lugar de trabajo y las relaciones resultantes. Los siete estilos directivos de Grid se basan en cómo dos preocupaciones fundamentales (interés por las personas y la preocupación por los resultados) se manifiestan en diversos niveles cada vez que las personas interactúan.

Los siete estilos directivos de Grid:

Espero resultados y tomo el control estableciendo un curso de acción claro. Impongo las reglas que sostienen resultados altos y no permiten una desviación.
Respaldo resultados que establecen y refuerzan la armonía. Genero entusiasmo al enfocarme en aspectos positivos y agradables del trabajo.
Promuevo resultados que son populares pero tengo precaución al tomar riesgos innecesarios. Compruebo mis opiniones con otros involucrados para asegurar una aceptación en curso.
Me alejo de tomar responsabilidad activa de los resultados y evito enredarme en problemas. Si soy presionado, asumo una posición pasiva y de apoyo.
Proporciono liderazgo al definir iniciativas para mi mismo y otros. Ofrezco elogios y aprecio para sustentar y disuadir logros en mi pensar.
Persuado a otros de respaldar resultados que me ofrecen beneficios privados. Si ellos también se benefician, es aún mejor ganar apoyo. Confio en el enfoque que sea necesario para asegurar una ventaja.
Inicio de una acción de equipo de una manera que invite a la participación y el compromiso. Exploro todos los hechos y puntos de vista alternativos para alcanzar un conocimiento compartido de la mejor solución.

Las relaciones de habilidades de Grid

La teoría Grid se traduce en el uso práctico de estilo a través de la relación de habilidades de Grid que experimentan las personas día a día cuando trabajan juntos. Estas habilidades de relación representan los comportamientos típicos y vitales para cada estilo que hacen relaciones eficaces o ineficaces. Algunos comportamientos fortalecen y motivan a los equipos mientras que otros obstruyen el progreso.

  • Crítica – El aprendizaje de la experiencia al anticipar y examinar la manera en que el comportamiento y las acciones afectan los resultados.
  • Iniciativa – Tomar acciones para ejercitar el esfuerzo, la conducción y el apoyo compartido de actividades específicas.
  • Investigación – Preguntar, buscar información y comprobar para conocer.
  • Apoyo – Expresar actitudes, opiniones, ideas y convicciones.
  • Toma de decisiones – Evaluar fuentes, criterios y consecuencias para llegar a una decisión.
  • Solución de conflictos – Enfrentar y trabajar en los desacuerdos con otros hacia una solución.
  • Resistencia – Reacción a los problemas, atrasos y fallas y conocimiento de la manera en que estos factores influyen en la capacidad de avanzar.

La teoría Grid hace a los comportamientos tan tangibles y objetivos como cualquier otra mercancía de la corporación. Al estudiar cada una de los siete estilos de liderazgo de Grid y de la relación de las capacidades de comportamiento que resulten, los equipos pueden examinar, en términos objetivos, la forma en que los comportamientos los ayudan o lastiman. Pueden explorar tipos de crítica que trabajan mejor para ellos y por qué. Se puede discutir abiertamente la forma de mejorar las habilidades de la toma de decisiones y solución de conflictos. Por lo general, estos y otros temas se consideran “fuera de los límites” en términos de productividad son los temas que obstaculizan la productividad. El enfoque Grid no sólo hace a estos temas “discutibles” sino medibles en términos objetivos que generan empatía, motivación para mejorar y creatividad.

 

La teoría de Grid ha otorgado poderes al cambio progresivo en las organizaciones desde la década de 1950 cuando la dinámica de grupo y el comportamiento fueron identificados por primera vez como una fuerza impulsora en el desarrollo de un equipo. En las últimas cinco décadas, Grid International (antes Scientific Methods) ha trabajado con miles de empresas y cientos de miles de participantes en más de 17 idiomas en todo el mundo.

La teoría de Grid fue desarrollada por Robert Blake y el doctor Jane S. Mouton, dos de los principales pioneros de la consultoría de liderazgo transformacional y cambio en las organizaciones. Al ir cuesta arriba en la ciencia del comportamiento, el aprendizaje de Grid ha sido adaptado de manera exitosa a los órganos corporativos, gubernamentales y académicos para llevar a cabo un cambio dinámico y duradero.

Los Drs. Blake y Mouton fundaron nuestra empresa en 1961 después de más de quince años de cátedra en la Universidad de Texas en Austin.

Los verdaderos visionarios, los Drs. Blake y Mouton han sido una fuerza fundamental en la transición de poderes revolucionarios de la psicología académica y la ciencia del comportamiento al aumento del rendimiento diario de las empresas y las organizaciones gubernamentales. El Dr. Blake ha dado clases en las Universidades de Harvard, Oxford y Cambridge y ha trabajado en misiones especiales en la Tavistock Clinic, de Londres, como Fulbright Scholar. Fue elegido miembro del Salón de la fama de Recursos Humanos en 1982 y elegido como autor galardonado de administración en 1992.

Hasta su muerte el 20 de junio de 2004, el Dr. Blake fue un diplomático en Psicología Industrial y Organizacional y miembro de la American Psychological Association.

Grid International continúa con orgullo este legado y tradición de amplio desarrollo de comportamiento organizacional de programas de investigación y desarrollo. Tenemos un excelente equipo de desarrollo de productos, que sigue apoyando el rigor científico de nuestra investigación y a desarrollar y perfeccionar nuestros programas.

El cambio efectivo y duradero se hace posible una vez que se cumplen estas cuatro condiciones:

1. Una base de teoría, perspicacia, conocimiento, experiencia
La teoría de Grid define siete estilos distintos de los comportamientos de mando que sirven como una base para el entendimiento compartido. La teoría define comportamientos en un contexto sistemático que crea una lente nueva y objetiva. Esta nueva visión se logra sin perder de vista las emociones vitales, convicciones y valores que conducen el comportamiento y definen a la gente como individuos. En lugar de eso, la gente y los equipos aprenden a considerar los comportamientos en un contexto nuevo, más objetivo. Los participantes filtran las percepciones subjetivas del el comportamiento por la lente de Grid para entender por qué un acercamiento de solución de problemas funciona mientras que otros fallan de manera rotunda; por qué un acercamiento a la toma de decisiones tiene éxito mientras que otro deja una estela de conflicto y resentimiento.

2. Eliminación de auto-engaño 
La autovaloración raras veces es objetiva. La mayoría de la gente no ve sus comportamientos de mando individuales de manera realista o como los otros los ven, pero en cambio ven sus propias intenciones. Intencionalmente o no, la mayor parte de individuos ven de manera natural sus propias características positivas y minimizan lo negativo, incluso si esto significa desviar la realidad un poco.

Esta auto-decepción crea un hueco de conciencia entre la manera en que nosotros nos vemos y lo que los otros en realidad experimentan. Las percepciones se distorsionan aún más mientras uno es ascendido en una organización o trabaja en los ambientes que evitan la candidez y la crítica sana. Por consiguiente, la gente dice lo que los otros quieren oír y así evitan enfrentar defectos y problemas. Mientras más larga se hace esta aceptación silenciosa, más se refuerzan los comportamientos poco sólidos y menos equipos crecen y organizaciones prosperan.

3. Reconocimiento del hueco
Una manera efectiva de empezar a cerrar la distancia entre las intenciones y las acciones es discutir, aclarar y definir actitudes con respecto a cómo luce el comportamiento sano en las interacciones diarias. Estas discusiones establecen un modelo de comparación y medición del comportamiento real mientras ocurre.

El modelo proporciona una base sólida dando a la gente nuevas formas de dirigirse a los individuos y a los comportamientos de los equipos de liderazgo de manera objetiva en lugar de criticar a la gente por estar “mal” o “equivocada”. Grid ofrece una forma de enfocarse en el comportamiento y su impacto y no a la persona como individuo.

Con un modelo de buena conducta en su lugar y la auto-decepción a un lado, se desarrolla una fuerte tensión a medida que la gente comienza a reconocer los comportamientos en sí mismos y en los demás en comparación con otros comportamientos que consideran sanos. Esta tensión crea la motivación para cambiar dichos comportamientos y mejorar desde adentro hacia afuera.

4. Apoyo del equipo
Los nuevos comportamientos toman tiempo para el cambio. Otra de las claves para el éxito es la fuerza de apoyo de otros. El apoyo del equipo mantiene el cambio en marcha con la participación de las personas que trabajan con usted todos los días. Los colegas y compañeros de trabajo le proporcionan apoyo e ideas creativas para fortalecer las estrategias de cambio personal. Toda conversación o interacción tiene el potencial de nuevas perspectivas, ideas creativas, oportunidades y en última instancia la sinergia, lo que nunca ocurriría si los comportamientos y estrategias permanecieran ocultas y sin tratar.

Historical perspective of Grid methodology by Rachel McKee

There is a moment in a Grid Seminar where self-deception and fear give way to courage. Courage replaces fear as team members cross a threshold of mutual trust that makes candor possible. For some people, this moment is the most powerful they’ve ever experienced because for first time they see their behaviors through the eyes of others. That moment may feel like serendipity to seminar participants, but it’s actually very deliberate. It comes from a half-century of research and application in the field of group dynamics. This article traces some of the history that went into the moment, and into Grid OD.

Believe it or not, the first insight for Dr. Robert R. Blake, (co-founder with Dr. Jane S. Mouton of Grid International), came from child therapy right here in the UK. Wilfred Bion really started it all with his 1948 publication “Experiences in Groups”.1

In the years following WWII, Bion was an imminent figure in the developing field of psychoanalytic child therapy and Object Relations (Group) Therapy. Bion explored a revolutionary notion that the family was the critical unit of change for any child. Therefore, therapy must involve not just the child—not even just the child and the parents—but ultimately the entire family unit.

Blake saw the problems play out over an over again in clinical settings where a patient was removed from his or her family environment for treatment. Even if the treatment was successful, it was ultimately created in a vacuum, and was so often quickly undone when the patient left. As Blake put it, individual treatment was “hopeless” as long as the individual was expected to return to and function as a member of (a dysfunctional) family unit.

Blake also felt that long-term individual psychoanalysis (the norm for therapy at that time), even though valuable, was impractical for the average person. The time and energy spent in psychoanalysis did not merit the Herculean leap the patient still had to make, which was “What do I do now, when I go home or back to work now?”

The deeper paradigm that Blake wanted to shatter was the “I need you to fix me” mentality of personal change. Unlike one-on-one therapy, group therapy “cut to the chase” so to speak. Group therapy explored problems in “real time” by addressing the behaviors as they occurred. Blake felt that group therapy might provide the key to changing individual behavior.

When the UK shifted to socialized medicine after the war, London’s Tavistock Clinic enjoyed new opportunities for research in group therapy, and it was to Tavistock that Blake received an 18-month Fulbright Scholarship in 1948. The insight happened during these 18-months at Tavistock.

Blake worked as a co-therapist with Henry Ezriel conducting rigorous therapy with groups, some remaining intact for a year or more. They explored the impact of power and authority on groups. The therapist traditionally represents an authority figure expected to “prescribe and guide” patients through treatment. But Ezriel and Blake challenged this notion. They deliberately limited their guidance and then explored the “unconscious group tensions” that developed. Over time, common experiences (the lack of guidance) emerged as common patterns of behavior. These common patterns eventually formed the Grid theory of behavior styles.

Self-Deception

Another critical learning point for Blake from Tavistock was how self-deception played out in groups compared to one-on-one therapy. They knew that individuals are often blind to their own unsound behaviors, which creates a strong resistance to change. Furthermore, they knew that individuals reject self-awareness when imposed by a therapist, but experience profound motivation to change when awareness came from within the group. Blake also knew that within-group awareness meant that ongoing support was more likely when group members comprised “units” of change, i.e. family, coworkers, etc.

The Power of Groups

Another major influence on Grid OD was small group and inter-group research. Blake and Mouton explored three primary issued related to group dynamics:

  1. Group relationships greatly influence individual motivation, perception, and action;
  2. Group members conform to behaviors more strongly when competing with other groups;
  3. “Super-ordinate goals” (a shared goal) between groups was the most compelling way to harness efforts away from conflict and toward a shared solution.

The group dynamics research proved to Blake and Mouton that, like the family, the organization was truly the unit of change for any individual expected to function as a part of that organization. Their research proved that an organization is not simply a collection of individuals, but is in fact a powerful unit of change. These dynamics represent a more highly organized, often invisible, culture that compels powerful uniformities of behavior, including “hidden” forces like convergence, cohesion, and conformity.

Blake spent 10 years after Tavistock with The National Training Laboratories in Bethel, Maine, working with T-Groups. T-Group facilitators provide some guidance and interpretation, but do not “lead” the group in the traditional sense. The lack of structure and limited trainer involvement created conditions where participants can explore behavior and impact in more objective terms.

T-Groups: A Revolutionary Approach

While working with NTL, Blake and Mouton began focusing their OD and university research on variations of the T-Group experience. They were searching for a way to shift the power into the group, and T-Groups were the next logical step.

Enthusiasm for T-Groups was tremendous. Corporate leaders began flocking to T-Group sessions at NTL in the 50s and 60s, seeking ways to transfer the learning to the workplace. Blake and Mouton also began offering T-Group classes at the University of Texas that experimented with self-directed groups. These became some of the most popular university classes at that time. They also began a ten-year worldwide effort with Exxon and other business applications during that time.

General Semantics

General Semantics was another key influence on Grid OD. General Semantics, developed by Alfred Korzybski, proposed using a “scientific method” for thinking and learning by continually challenging assumptions and beliefs and revising them as new facts and data warrant. Blake and Mouton appreciated two aspects of general semantics in particular, that of time-binding and two-sided thinking.

Time binding is the unique ability of humans to build on the achievements of previous generations to expand learning and understanding. Language and writing serve as the ultimate tools for time binding, and that influence can be seen in how prolific Bob and Jane were about publishing, and “offering” their work for continuous improvement. They published over 350 books and articles in their careers.

Embracing Conflict

Two-Sided thinking acknowledges ambiguity in the reasons for differences. It views possible causes across a spectrum or continuum (depicted as scales in Grid designs), rather than being satisfied with black/white reasoning.

There’s a gut level reaction in people to avoid conflict by quickly assessing differences in black and white terms and entrenching assumptions instead of exploring differences objectively. The fear of conflict and self-deception work together in groups to create seemingly insurmountable win/lose barriers to two-sided thinking.

Two-Sided thinking was the perfect companion to Blake and Mouton’s fascination with power and authority in groups. They saw power and authority as absolutely critical to group behavior, and they saw an inability to consider differences objectively as a key barrier to achieving ideal behavior. They knew that any attempt at creating the “work” mentality would have to involve instilling two-sided thinking into any work group.

In the years that followed those insights at Tavistock and NTL, Blake and Mouton embarked on a rigorous journey. They sought to do what no one thought could be done—to create a structured learning process, apparently without structure, or at least without the traditional expert-student structure.

Those years of research and the T-Group experience solidified two fundamental assumptions for Blake and Mouton. Both assumptions dealt with “fade-out”—the inability to effectively transfer learning back to existing relationships where change was needed. No matter how powerful and enlightening the T-Group learning experience was, fade-out prevented meaningful and lasting change from transferring and growing back in the organization. Like Bion’s assumptions, Blake and Mouton knew that “fade-out” was a severe drawback to any organization change effort.

The first assumption from the T-Group work was that they wanted to recapture the learning created by those sessions at Tavistock Clinic with Ezriel. Blake and Mouton ultimately saw trainers as a roadblock to group members learning for themselves. Members could stop and examine their process when invited to do so by a trainer, but were unable to critique behaviors effectively without guidance.

The bottom line was that Blake and Mouton wanted the authority figure completely removed from the group learning process. No matter how non-directive the facilitator tried to be, he or she was still subtly dictatorial, even more dictatorial (because of its subtlety) than the harshest CEO, because the control was often subtle and hidden. They wanted to create the same guidance in an objective setting where teams could “discover” and “manage” their own course for change.

The second assumption was that groups needed a way to make “intangible” behaviors more tangible—tangible enough for objective group discussion. Blake had seen Bion’s model come to life in the sessions at Tavistock. He knew that group behavior occurred in consistent patterns, but there was no way to create a shared understanding of those patterns without a tangible framework. They saw the benefit of theory for “grounding” discussions so each group wouldn’t have to “reinvent the wheel.” A theory of behavior styles would accelerate the learning process by focusing group learning on behaviors without prescribing conclusions about “right” and “wrong” behaviors.

Their research and worldwide application pushed Blake and Mouton to search deeper and deeper to prove their “theory” about using theory. They finally published The Managerial Grid in the now famous 1964 Harvard Business Review article, “A Breakthrough in Organization Development.” They followed with the first edition of The Managerial Grid book later that year. They published five editions of The Managerial Grid, as well as over 40 other books during their three decades of collaboration.

Grid Theory was folded into an organization development process that finally and effectively removed the facilitator or “expert” from the learning process. Grid OD included individual, team, team-to-team, and ultimately culture development, making the entire organization a potential unit of change.

Dr. Blake wrote in his autobiography that, “Satisfaction from effort comes far more from the processes inherent in teamwork than in its products or achievements.” The word “driven” does not begin to capture how Bob and Jane felt about furthering Grid. They examined every aspect of relationships through a Grid window, always looking for new insights through which to understand human behavior.

A norm is any uniform attitude or action that two or more people share by virtue of their membership in a group. We experience our attitudes toward productivity as private and personal, as originating in our own thinking, experience, and motivation, and as unique to each of us. What we fail to realize is that our attitudes arise from the norms of the groups in which we hold memberships. As a result, group norms for productivity and our attitudes toward them regulate a greater part of our work effort or lack of it than we realize.Norms are the most powerful silent catalyst in teams. They draw a line in the sand between being a member and being an outsider. Norms define a team’s culture and dictate what behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable. Norms are not necessarily written in policy manuals, but every team member has a vivid understanding of them.

To get an understanding of your own team norms, imagine that you have been assigned to orient a new team member to routine team operations. Think about your team norms and all the issues you would have to cover with an outsider who knows nothing about your team. Some examples of statements that indicate norms are:

  • “I know the policy says that, but we do it this way.”
  • “Stay away from that person (or group). You don’t want to be associated too closely with them.”
  • “It may seem unusual, but that’s the way we do it.”
  • “Policy says these reports need to be done weekly, but we probably only do them once a month. No one pays any attention to them anyway.”
  • We conduct meetings like this…”

Norms are the silent and powerful forces that direct and guide behavior. They are not good or bad, but a simple fact of life. In other words, norms are like a landscape. Sound norms are the blossoms that enhance team performance. Unsound norms are weeds that, when left unchecked, hinder team performance. Given that, teams and leaders need to understand how to create sound norms or change existing unsound norms into ones that inspire excellence in teamwork and performance.

Norms are the building blocks for a company’s culture. To illustrate how norms work to shape a culture, picture two aquariums side by side. Both aquariums look identical from the outside. They seem to have the same variety of fish, plants, water, food, etc. When you look closer, however, one aquarium has the perfect number of fish, the ideal amount of food, and the best balance of plant life, along with the right temperature and light. The aquarium has a healthy culture. The fish and plant life thrive with energy and health.

The other aquarium appears the same from the outside but its temperature is off by a couple of degrees. The plant life is a little out of balance. There are a few too many fish, and not quite enough food. The aquarium has an unhealthy culture. The fish and plant life struggle to survive.

If you take a fish from the unhealthy aquarium and put it into the healthy aquarium, the fish will begin to improve and, over time, become invigorated with new, vibrant energy and color. Conversely, if you take a fish from the healthy aquarium and put it into the unhealthy aquarium, that fish begins to adapt to the conditions of the unhealthy environment. Colors fade, it becomes sluggish and disoriented.

Now picture a row of corporate office buildings, all looking strong, powerful, and healthy from the outside. The same principle applies as with the aquarium when introducing new people into an established culture.

Group Dynamics: How Norms Form

Leaders are the captives of their cultures. Choices remain unseen because those responsible for change are surrounded by the mirrors of the very culture they have created.
– Drs. Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton

Group dynamics can make or break a change effort. They are the silent drivers and primary source for change that either encourage or impede momentum. Norms develop through three basic laws of human behavior demonstrated through relationships, teams, and organizations:

  1. Convergence
  2. Cohesion
  3. Conformity

In the same way that comprehending the law of gravity helps to understand the behavior of objects, comprehending the basic laws of group dynamics helps in understanding the power of norms and their influence on behavior and performance. Moreover, there is a natural source of power in these dynamics that a skilled and knowledgeable team can harness for maximum effectiveness.

People think of values and attitudes as private, personal, and unique, but research shows that most personal attitudes arise from group norms. As a result, team attitudes determine the quality of individual work effort more than most people realize. The norms of a group are reflected in its traditions, precedents, habits, rites, rules, rituals, regulations, policies, operating procedures, customs, taboos, and past practices. These norms begin forming through a process known as convergence.

Convergence

Convergence initiates norms spontaneously by shifting individual attitudes or patterns of behavior toward a uniform group pattern that every member shares. Few social pressures are more important for understanding change than the human tendency to converge around a common idea in a group setting. For example: a team has several members, each of whom starts out a planning meeting with an opinion regarding how much productivity is “enough.” One person thinks fifteen “units” per day is adequate, another recommends only five, while other members suggest thirteen, nine, or eight, etc. As people work together and exchange ideas, the opinions expressed lead to a shift in attitudes around a more uniform norm. Research has shown that this common dilemma is almost always resolved by a common convergence to the middle position. In the illustration, the agreed-upon productivity benchmark becomes ten, or close to ten.

Group dynamics: convergence, cohesion, conformity.Cohesion

Cohesion is the phenomenon by which people in groups congregate around common interests and values. People prefer to associate with other people like them and by whom they are liked. Cohesion is one of the most significant forces for social organization. People are naturally drawn to others who share a common experience that allows them to bypass the formalities they follow with outsiders. Examples of cohesion surface in every aspect of life as people tend to gravitate toward and give preference to others who share common interests or experiences. This preference may follow the lines of race, gender, religion, politics, socioeconomic status, or education. In organization life, other dimensions apply, such as years of service, position, level of training, or common work experience.

Cohesion is the emotional attraction people feel toward one another, and as such it accelerates the development of norms. On a social basis, we call this “bonding.” When cohesion is strong, people relate to each other with a stronger sense of trust, confidence, and commitment. They embrace the norms with pride because the shared experience feels comfortable and right. Cohesion is demonstrated in comments like, “We’ll do whatever it takes to make this happen.”

Conformity

Once a norm is established, conformity is the natural force that influences group members to maintain that norm. Conformity enforces the norm by creating pressure, often subtly, to “fall in line” with the group in reinforcing the norm. Conformity happens every time a co-worker says, “I know it’s a little unusual, but we don’t use a formal agenda for these meetings,” or “You’re coming across too strong in meetings. We like to keep these meetings relaxed and spontaneous.” The message, whether given by a gesture, comment, or outright directive, is “You need to change your behavior to fit in.” The price of non-conformity is rejection.

The Impact of Norms on the Organization and Team

Only through a never-ending effort to override the automatic behavior of the past could a change in relationships even be a remote possibility.
– Dr. Robert R. Blake

Once the dynamics are understood, the key question for every organization is “Are we conforming to norms that help us or hinder us?” In the same way that individuals can become aware of individual behavior and its impact on others, teams and entire organizations can become aware of their norms and the impact on results.

Like norms themselves, the laws of convergence, cohesion, and conformity are neither good nor bad, but are dynamics that simply happen. The influence they wield can bring power to an organization that chooses to understand and lead these norms. Left alone, they can evolve into norms that may devastate a company’s fortunes because leaders are looking elsewhere (the economy, government, or competition) for causes of poor performance. Like other natural laws, group dynamics operate 24 hours a day, rain or shine, profit or loss, in every organization. Ineffective norms have a way of creeping up unnoticed like weeds in a garden, hampering an organization’s efforts to change. To avoid this, successful organizations prevent the weeds from growing by constantly challenging unsound norms and continually reinforcing sound ones.

In Good to Great, Jim Collins compares the executive culture of two steel industry companies, Bethlehem Steel and Nucor. Both companies faced devastating setbacks in the 1980s due to a recession and the competitive challenge of cheap, imported steel. Bethlehem Steel reacted with deep cuts throughout the organization, while at the same time constructing a 21-story office building to house its executive staff. At extra expense, it designed the building in the shape of a cross in order to accommodate the large number of vice presidents who needed corner offices. Other norms for executives included using the corporate jets for weekend getaways. There were also executive golf memberships, and rank even determined shower priority at these clubs. Collins says, “Bethlehem did not decline in the 1970s and 1980s primarily because of imports or technology—Bethlehem declined first and foremost because it was a culture wherein people focused their efforts on negotiating the nuances of an intricate social hierarchy, not on customers, competitors, or changes in the external world.” Unsound norms were so strong as to manage the organization instead of the organization managing its norms.

At the other side of the spectrum was Nucor, which at the same time “took extraordinary steps to keep at bay the class distinctions that eventually encroach on most organizations.” Facing the same industry conditions, executives did not receive better benefits than front-line workers. In fact, executives had fewer perks. For example, all workers (but not executives) were eligible to receive $2,000 per year per child for up to four years of post-high school education. When Nucor had a profitable year, everyone in the company benefited. When Nucor faced tough times, everyone from the top to the bottom suffered. But people from the top suffered more. In a recent recession, for example, worker pay went down 25 percent, officer pay went down 50 percent, and the CEO’s pay went down 75 percent.

Companies that never challenge unsound norms or reinforce sound norms can find themselves at a severe disadvantage when trying to compete. A simple norm like executive perks may seem minor, but it communicates a powerful message to non-executives throughout an organization that undermines commitment and a sense of personal stake.

Changing Norms

It is only when we examine the extent to which personal attitudes, thoughts, and feelings are shared with primary group members that the regulating effect of informal norms and standards become clearly visible.
– Drs. Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton

A chaos of conflicting, reluctant, and confused responses develops every time a change is introduced. This chaos creates the first stage of convergence and conformity. This stage provides teams with a critical opportunity to influence change because within the confusion lies valuable potential for leadership, creativity, and standards of excellence. This is where the “how much is enough” question is being asked and tested, when norms are in their early stages. At this pivotal point, when the group is beginning to form new norms, a leader’s style can influence how the group converges.

It is essential for leaders to be aware that these three valuable sources of energy—convergence, cohesion, and conformity—exist during periods of change. Learning how to harness them productively makes the difference between developing sound or unsound norms. There is little as demotivating to people as leadership that continues to ignore obvious realities and continues with ineffective strategies because it cannot or will not face reality.

In Good to Great, Jim Collins described the following quality as being a key factor in all “Good to Great” companies:

“On the one hand, they (‘good to great’ companies) stoically accepted the brutal facts of reality. On the other hand, they maintained an unwavering faith in the endgame, and a commitment to prevail as a great company despite the brutal facts.”

Companies that succeed in staying on the cutting edge of competition all have one thing in common: they question everything and constantly challenge norms so that complacency never sets in. Unless they are challenged, norms can become outmoded, ineffective, and deeply entrenched in the culture. When this occurs, companies perpetuate unsound practices because “That’s the way we do it around here,” even when better ways are available.

Setting Soundest Norms for Team Development

Teams establish sound norms by examining the effectiveness of existing norms. Conditions required for setting sound team standards include:

Involvement: Those who will be guided by the standards participate in establishing them.

Clarity: The standards are realistic and clearly defined.

Challenge: The standards inspire and motivate team members to achieve new levels of performance. If they do not challenge people, business will simply continue as usual and the standard-setting exercise will have been in vain.

Understanding: Every team member fully understands the meaning of each standard.

Commitment: Team members resolve to perform by the standards they set for themselves.

Excellence: Team members agree on what constitutes excellent performance and adopt standards to foster such excellence.

At Grid International, we work with clients to help them maximize their human capital. Every strategy is different and every challenge unique, but the patterns of group dynamics and culture are universal and absolutely critical for gaining a performance edge. Having a clear understanding of the group dynamics of culture and how they work is essential for mobilizing both small and large groups of people. All change efforts must begin by understanding the existing culture and how to manage and maximize this invaluable resource. We give clients the power to develop cultures that constantly reinforce standards of excellence. For more information on how you can understand and harness norms for positive and enduring transformation, please contact us  direccion@miguelpla.com    www.miguelpla.com 

 

Most people don’t realize that every relationship has a culture. You don’t usually think of culture operating at the relationship level, or driving individual behaviors, but it has the lead role. Drs. Blake and Mouton said “Culture is to the corporation as air is to man, so enveloping that unless something foul or fragrant is added, he is not aware of it.” And that applies for a multinational organization, or an individual family.

Our relationships are as unique as our individual personalities. Think of the journey of developing your strongest relationships. Those you value most likely evolved over time and included a fair amount of working through challenging situations. What are the characteristics that set those relationships apart? Mutual trust and respect are probably there. Honesty is another key ingredient. You don’t have to worry about people hiding information from you. You don’t have to worry about being unfairly judged. Candor is a centerpiece feature. You can ‘vent’ your frustrations without reproach. You likely seek out these people to test new ideas and can speak your mind without fear of recrimination. And, you probably get a great deal of personal satisfaction and fulfillment from these relationships.

The bottom line for these relationships is that you can release all of the usual defenses and absolutely be yourself with complete confidence that the relationship will survive. Daniel Goleman describes a state of “flow” that occurs in high performance relationships when emotions are not just contained and channeled, but positive, energized, and aligned with the task at hand. “A surgeon, for example, recalled a challenging operation during which he was in flow; when he completed the surgery, he noticed rubble on the floor of the operating room and asked what had happened. He was amazed to hear that while he was so intent on the surgery part of the ceiling had caved in–he hadn’t noticed at all.”

Now think about how long those relationships took to develop. Some may have taken a lifetime while others take weeks or months to develop. Others may have developed more quickly because of a shared experience of working through differences. In most cases, however, relationship development may seem like more serendipitous than deliberate.

Most people also get better at managing relationships over time. “Studies that have tracked people’s level of emotional intelligence through the years show that people get better and better in these capabilities as they grow more adept at handling their own emotions and impulses, at motivating themselves, and at honing their empathy and social adroitness. There is an old-fashioned word for this growth in emotional intelligence: maturity.

It’s not always in our nature to be proactive, however, in shaping our relationships. We think of it as a personal and emotional journey; that imposing a formal process may reduce authenticity or interfere with the natural course of the relationship.

Many people take an evolutionary “ready-fire-aim” approach to developing relationships, just following and reacting to events. Our instinctive reaction in the ‘always connected and instant gratification’ world we live in is to jump into shared effort and let relationships evolve over time. The relationships that survive and thrive are the ones that effectively manage differences and other behavior obstacles and deliver on results.

This haphazard approach can take a long time and often leaves valuable resources that people have to offer on the table. For example, a person with a creative, spontaneous, and persuasive personality may dominate a more rational and organized person. A person who fears being fired at work avoids the risk of making any kind of mistake. A person with an accommodating personality constantly gives in to preferences of others, taking on more work and than is manageable to try and keep things harmonious.

The path of least resistance for most workplace relationships is to follow the authority and mimic the behavior of the leader. Over time, an entire company can take on the personality of a strong leader through collective norms. A close friend of mine worked for a successful grocery chain where the entire executive team took on the president’s behavior of arriving early to work. The team took it so seriously that on an icy morning the entire executive team arrived so early for a flight that the airport wasn’t even open. They ended up standing in the freezing temperature for over an hour before they could even get into the terminal building.

The same thing happens in all relationships. Strong people usually shape the initial norms by the force of their personality. The norms then develop and survive if they prove effective. If the approach appeals to team members and delivers results, the behaviors become more embedded as ongoing norms over time. Success is completely dependent on the leader. The only way to challenge the norms is to disagree with the leader, which can be very risky! It’s all very sloppy, really. When you consider how deliberately we manage other parts or our personal and working life, it’s hard to believe we’re so haphazard in managing our working relationships!

There is a proven approach that will accelerate the process of developing and managing relationship defined by candor and transparency. The process is involves learning candor skills and using them in your relationships the same way you would a physical workout. The more you use these skills, the stronger and second nature they become. For more information, please contact us direccion@miguelpla.com www.miguelpla.com

 

Asiste a uno de los mejores seminarios de Liderazgo y Trabajo en Equipo  que se imparten en 42 países con más de 50 años de investigación desarrollo y éxito en empresas nacionales y trasnacionales.  Pide hoy mismo toda la información y recibe al registrarte y pagar tu pase antes del 15 de Abril 2019 un descuento especial para estos seminarios o para un seminario si lo quieres realizar In Company

El 80% del éxito depende de nuestra psicología, el poder de la mente transforma las ideas en acciones.

Las malas noticias y distracciones son obstáculos que se convierten en los enemigos más peligrosos, se interponen entre nosotros y nuestras metas.

La batalla constante por acaparar nuestra atención, ha generado que la información en los diferentes medios esté repleta de malas noticias y distracciones, estos obstáculos se convierten en los enemigos más peligrosos que se interponen entre nosotros y nuestras metas. Mantener una mente positiva es la mejor arma, entre más la procuremos y nutramos, mejor nos sentiremos y por consiguiente nuestra calidad de vida también mejorará.

Fortalezas vs Limitaciones

Durante mucho tiempo hemos sido educados bajo un enfoque de lo negativo, nos hemos centrado más en nuestras limitaciones, áreas de oportunidad, desórdenes y defectos; en lugar de enfocarnos en nuestras fortalezas para poder lograr lo que buscamos en nuestras vidas.

Un ejercicio muy efectivo y sencillo es pensar en nuestras cinco fortalezas más importantes y escribir cómo vivir a través de ellas en lugar de las limitaciones. Recordarnos cómo lograrlo es fundamental, una recomendación es agregarlas a las notas en el celular o bien imprimirlas y colocarlas en algún lugar visible. Al condicionar nuestra mente empezaremos a sentirnos sustancialmente mejor, vivir enfocados en lo positivo nos ayudará a progresar, el progreso es la clave para alcanzar una vida plena.

El poder de las preguntas correctas

Condicionar nuestra mente es fundamental para empoderarnos, así como para obtener más claridad de lo que es importante. La mente se regocija ante el poder de las preguntas correctas, aprender a cuestionar nos empodera en lugar de limitarnos, mejora nuestra intención, provoca que actuemos de manera distinta ante los retos, eleva nuestro nivel de conciencia centrándonos en lo positivo y no en lo negativo.

Cada uno de nosotros es responsable de crear sus propias preguntas, se trata de condicionar nuestra mente. Pero aquí te dejamos algunos ejemplos:

 

  • ¿Cómo puedo vivir centrado en mi corazón para inspirar a otras personas?
  • ¿Cómo puedo ser auténtico hoy?
  • ¿Quién necesita más la mejor versión de mí, hoy?
  • ¿Cómo puedo hacer sonreír más a otras personas, hoy?
  • ¿Qué es lo que realmente quiero sentir en este momento?
  • ¿Qué podría salir mal el día de hoy?

Panel de pensamientos

Otro ejercicio muy poderoso es visualizar, “lo que está en tu mente se vuelve una realidad”. ¿Alguna vez te has repetido consistentemente que algo no saldrá bien y de un momento a otro te das cuenta de que se volvió una realidad? Esto sucede en distintas áreas de nuestra vida, diseñar un panel de pensamientos como lo realizamos en el trabajo, definir las variables que queremos medir, enfocarnos y dedicarles tiempo a los pensamientos positivos es estratégico para alcanzar el progreso. El arte de este ejercicio está en recordarnos a nosotros mismos que vale la pena dedicarle tiempo.

Existen paneles de pensamiento distintos, cada uno es el creador de su propio panel. Sin embargo, aquí te dejamos un ejemplo:

 

  • Bienestar: cuerpo, alma y corazón
  • Matrimonio, hijos.
  • Familia, padres y hermanos.
  • Trabajo: socios, clientes, equipo, productos y servicios.
  • Amigos y círculo de influencia.
  • Entorno.
  • Voluntariado.
  • Mascotas, deporte, viajes, hobbies, nuevos proyectos.
  • Problemas de calidad y toma de decisiones.
  • Alternativas para la resolución de problemas de calidad.

¿Que determina la calidad de tu vida en este momento? Una pregunta mágica que me hice hace 4 años y aprendí que la calidad de mi vida está determinada por el significado que yo le doy a mi vida. Puede ser un día soleado y para ti este día puede ser mágico y extraordinario mientras que para otras personas puede ser el peor día de su vida, todo depende de cómo veamos las cosas.

Detrás del significado que le damos a las cosas, están nuestras emociones y es un arte el poder reconocer nuestras emociones y aprender a movernos de una emoción negativa a una emoción positiva. Tus emociones están bajo tu control. Hay tres grandes fuerzas que generan un impacto en cómo te sientes, en tus emociones, son fáciles de entender y las puedes poner en práctica cada día.

 Las tres fuerzas son:
  1. Tu fisiología, esta es la más importante de las tres, aprende a mover tu energía, moverte, por ejemplo, hacer pausas cada 50 minutos en tu día y mover tu cuerpo, saltar, brincar, caminar, subir escaleras o bien sonreír, dar un abrazo, cambiar la posición de tus hombros, estar atenido de como caminas. Cada vez que tu mente entre en una emoción negativa, revisa como sientes tu cuerpo y la energía en tu cuerpo y pregunta ¿qué puedo cambiar en mi fisiología en este momento?
  2. Tu enfoque, en lo que te enfocas se expande, el arte de aprender, hacerte las preguntas correctas, a preguntas malas, respuestas malas. Aprende a condicionar tu enfoque con preguntas de alto poder como: ¿De qué estoy feliz en mi vida en este momento? ¿Qué es lo que me hace feliz? ¿Cómo eso me hace sentir? ¿De qué estoy agradecido en mi vida en este momento? ¿Qué es lo que me hace agradecido? ¿Cómo esto me hace sentir?
  3. Tu lenguaje, desafortunadamente a través de las noticias, de las canciones, de las redes sociales, tenemos acceso a palabras negativas y esto influye en tus emociones. Te invito a estar más atento en tu lenguaje y comienza a cambiar tu vocabulario, usa palabras que te engrandezcan, por ejemplo, una palabra que para mí es de statu quo es la palabra “bien”, sácala de tu vocabulario y di “muy bien” o “extraordinario”, otro ejemplo, “me molesta” puedes decir “me reta” o bien la palabra “fallé” por las palabras “aprendí algo”.

Soy un convencido que, para tener un año épico, un año mágico, tenemos que aprender a dominar nuestra mente. Enfocarnos en una gran estrategia para tener un año extraordinario está muy bien, sin embargo, esto solo será el 20% de tu éxito, el 80% restante será la fortaleza de tu mente, de tu psicología.

RSS
Facebook
Twitter