Uncategorized

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:

Convergence
Cohesion
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,

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.

Self-deception is a natural human behavior in which we see our own behaviors in terms of our (usually good) intentions. On the other side of that, people we relate to every day see only our actions, and the two views can be very different! People naturally want to be productive members of society and make a meaningful contribution in relationships. Unless we have one of those wonderful relationships that has candor, the intended and the reality of our actions can cause a lot of negative emotions like fear, anger, resentment, self-righteousness, to name a few.

Self-deception is prevalent and stubborn! The only way to overcome self deception is to constantly compare your behaviors to those you consider ideal, and engage in two-way critique with others in your relationships. Asking for and receiving honest feedback is a fundamental feature. This is easier said than done-you have to establish trust and be sincere about wanting candid feedback or people will only tell you what you want to hear.

Behaviors are motivated by our values and experiences from many sources in our lifetime, including parents, religion, schools, peers, people we admire, and cultures in which we work. Many values go back to childhood, but many we take on others as adults. They are so deeply embedded in our behavior that we rarely understand or examine their impact on our relationships.

In other words, in addition to the ready-fire-aim approach of self-deception, we are often blind to the underlying reasons for our behavior. We see our intentions or espoused behaviors-those we want to use, while others see our actual behaviors. Research shows that in more than 80 percent of the time our intended and actual behaviors do not align. It’s like looking into a carnival mirror that distorts our self-view. And, because the behaviors are tied to our core values, we take them personally and often reject or dismiss constructive evaluation out of hand. This makes it difficult for others to confront unsound behavior without creating tension or conflict.

There is another aspect of self-deception that creates more complication: insulation. The more leadership power you have over people (colleagues, subordinates, children, for example) the more others tell you what they think you want to hear, rather than what they really think. This insulation reinforces a lack of candor. Even people who don’t manage their fears appropriately can be led to believe that they do by those around them. People close to us learn our what we like and don’t like, and together build an intricate, often subtle, system of avoidance or sugar-coating things we don’t like. For example, those relating to you professionally may know not to question your authority, not to let you know when a budget goes out of control, a product launch fails, or a key client wants to switch to a competitor. The reactions of colleagues may be to downplay the brutal facts, try to resolve the problem without your input, or keep the bad news from you altogether. We hear people say, “I was going to tell him but didn’t think it was the right time,” or “I thought the news would have caused more problems than we need right now,” or perhaps more directly, “I wasn’t going to be the bearer of bad news.”

The good news is that research shows that people universally agree on what a sound relationship looks like. This universality provides a powerful and unifying force for relationships. Awareness of this connecting force creates a positive tension to improve our behavior and our relationships. Because we all want to do our best, clarifying a shared understanding of soundest helps us see “actual” conditions with more accuracy. People who see soundest are not only pulled toward changing things to what they should be, but they experience a heightened sense of repulsion with the status quo!

The reason we avoid candor is that we don’t have a framework to explore relationships in rational terms. We also don’t have an objective process that manages emotionally charged discussions. Grid theory of styles provides a rational and objective way to evaluate relationships and close the gap caused by self-deception with candor skills. The methodology accelerates the natural ‘evolutionary’ process of developing candor, but with the advantage of reaching a shared understanding of what behaviors you want to strengthen and those you want to reduce. This is a formula that works for relationships from two people up to a large, multinational organization.

When we learn to manage our relationships, then we create a twofold strength that backs up logical reason with emotional conviction. We all have the ability to develop this twofold strength and manage self-deception, but it’s a latent skill that needs practice.

Five decades of research shows that people value the same behaviors more than 80 percent of the time. At the same time, however, only 20 percent are actually practicing those behaviors in their relationships. The Grid process delivers immediately applicable candor skills for closing the gap between soundest and actual behaviors. The awareness of ineffective behaviors alone creates a positive tension to change and Grid skills provide the pathway.

Miguel Ángel Pla
Presidente y Director General
direccion@miguelpla.com
Teléfono: (81) 83784710

Después de que las personas experimenten una capacitación básica el Grid pueden analizarse con más claridad aspectos de la cultura general mediante proyectos.

Para este momento muchos miembros de la organización, quizá la mayoría, habrán asistido a un seminario inicial y encontrado que la oportunidad de trabajar como miembros de un equipo autorregulado es una experiencia nueva y gratificante.

En esta fase inicial del desarrollo podemos concentrarnos en un tipo de problema de trabajo y modificarlo. Los problemas de los que hablamos son los que no pertenecen a nadie en particular y en otro sentido, pertenecen a todos.

Se derivan de normas que rigen la manera en que las personas interactúan al realizar sus tareas. Son, por ejemplo, problemas que surgen por no querer verse mal en comparación con los compañeros. En otras palabras, puede saberse que cierta acción es correcta, pero un supervisor puede optar más bien por ignorar el problema basándose en que sus colegas se resisten a actuar.

Históricamente no se ha intentado resolver estos problemas ejerciendo el poder y la autoridad. Tienden a persistir a pesar de los esfuerzos para resolverlos. Esto lleva a la conclusión de que quizá se requiera un tipo diferente de intervención.

El concepto de norma y otros términos relacionados no se utilizan con frecuencia para hablar acerca de individuos. Estos pueden ser “portadores de normas”, pero las normas pertenecen al equipo.
Los conceptos como actitudes, opiniones y sentimientos transmiten algo respecto a los individuos que no tienen los equipos. Los individuos tienen opiniones, los equipos no. Todas estas palabras describen algo visto desde la perspectiva del individuo.

La estrategia de cambiar la conducta por “decreto” se percibe en el enfoque de que “un nuevo jefe barre con todo”. Un jefe nuevo asume el puesto, observa cosas que no le agradan, impone su voluntad en la situación y dice a a la gente en forma directa que dejen de hacer lo que han estado haciendo y empiecen a hacer lo que el jefe desea.
Algunas veces este método funciona pero muy a menudo fracasa porque aquellos cuya conducta se espera que cambie se resisten a ello.

La resistencia al cambio se ha establecido. La productividad permanece en el mismo nivel que antes.

¿Cómo obtener mayor productividad en la última hora de trabajo?
Uno de los cambios más difíciles de implantar es aquel que reemplace una práctica pasada con una nueva política que requiera que la gente se esfuerce más.

Se debe de implementar la situación, identificar el problema, planear una acción para solucionarlo y poner en marcha el plan.

Depender del poder y de la autoridad para cambiar normas puede ser riesgoso y desafortunado. La resistencia activa o pasiva que provoca, existe la posibilidad de enajenar a aquellos que necesitan cambiar su conducta; éstos pueden resistirse o incluso intentar vengarse. Y una moral reducida al extremo puede dificultar aún más las mejoras que se buscan.

Una alternativa al ejercicio del poder y la autoridad para dominar el cambio es utilizar el conocimiento que tenemos ahora de las normas y su influencia en la conducta para moderar el cambio de ésta. La manera de modificar las normas es comprometer a los empleados cuya conducta es regulada por ellas, en el estudio de cuáles son las normas existentes y la exploración de las alternativas de mayor utilidad para los objetivos corporativos.

“Pretty much all the honest truth telling in the world is done by children.”
– Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

A Most Misunderstood Word

Candor is one of the most misunderstood words in the English language. The word comes from the Latin word meaning “whiteness, brilliance, unstained purity,” and has evolved to mean speaking openly and honestly. The mantra following the banking scandals of the last decade is the need for candor and transparency. Renowned leaders and experts like Jack Welch, Daniel Goleman and Warren Bennis have published numerous books that cite the importance of candor. In fact, most books on leadership cite candor as a key element of a successful company, an instant panacea cure-all for corporate America.

It’s not that simple. Huge hurdles exist in companies, families and individual relationships that fundamentally block candor. To promote candor without first addressing why its absence is so prevalent is a formula for disaster. Telling someone to “be candid” is like telling someone they need to come to work tomorrow and speak a new language, and a really tough one, like Latin. Oh, and by the way, membership in your most important relationships relies on how well you speak Latin tomorrow.

Candor is a fundamental skill that is in many ways like learning a new language. The underlying assumption of all the books and articles I’ve read is that people just need to speak up; be forthright. Just do it! The truth is that candor follows power, so it most often works one-way: down. People with power can speak with candor to those below them (parents, teachers, supervisors, leaders, etc.). It’s a risk often not worth taking for the rest of us, however.

You Can’t Impose Candor

Candor cannot be imposed. Period. You can’t wield it like a club as punishment. You can’t extract it out of people. No matter how convincing a president, executive, leader, or parent is in “selling” the concepts of candor, the pleas are lost in translation on many people. The truth is that people creative enough to establish conditions bringing on the need for candor will be just as creative finding ways to avoid candor. Sometimes this creativity is deliberate, but more often it’s not.

I am not diminishing the value of candor, it indeed is the key to building the best possible relationships. We all see the benefits of candor in theory. We want candor. We envy those who enjoy the benefits of candor in their relationships. Our desire for openness in our relationships and workplaces is vivid. You see the desire played out every day in negative behaviors of politicking, dominating, gossiping, complaining (to the wrong people), job jumping, giving up, losing hope, are of these behaviors are forms of rebelling against the lack of candor in our relationships.

It’s Not About Courage…

Candor is not about courage, or the lack of it. That’s another false assumption that high profile people promoting candor often make. “You need to find the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said when it needs to be said.” These pronouncements make candor sound like a necessary evil, a blunt force weapon that is “for your own good.”

High profile whistle-blowers like Sherron Watkins at Enron are most often heralded as the best example we have of candor. This is very misleading. Confrontational candor should not be put up as anything but an extreme example of the kind of candor needed in Corporate America. The “one person who risks it all to confront evil” image is usually false. By the time Watkins acted, most of the real damage was done at Enron. She was jumping off a heavily hemorrhaging ship.

“Cowboy” Confrontation is one of the most difficult forms of candor to manage and also does the most harm. It’s what people do when their membership is beyond repair. Only those with great skill can pull this off without destroying relationships. People who use confrontation act because have nothing to lose so they don’t mind risking it all: losing their job or some other vital membership, walking away from a critical relationship.

People resist candor for true-life reasons. They would be foolish to risk their jobs, their livelihoods, their most important relationships. The supervisor with a tyrannical boss is better off better off putting in for a transfer. The newest partner in a law firm with a new mortgage and family is better off finding an acceptable way to deal with his boss’s behavior. Candor is not always a good course.

Confrontational candor also often only benefits certain people. You have to have more than just guts to pull it off. You have to have credibility and respectability to be heard. I’ve been in the workplace for 31 years. I’ve seen good people stand up for what is right and get fired. I’ve watched friends finally reach a point in marriages where they made a dramatic move that took the relationship to the point of no return. “Cowboy confrontation” is very risky. Many times, it only serves to force you burn one bridge and leave no choice but to move painfully on.

The reason we don’t speak up is simple: we don’t know how. What we do know is that we, as individuals, are only part of the problem. Candor practiced in isolation can be suicide in the wrong relationship. Speaking out risks membership, being outcast, or singled out as a target. This is why in most relationships, both work and personal, we operate with elephants in the room, some small and some enormous.

We All “Unlearn” Candor

Have you every tried to “unlearn” how to ride a bicycle? That’s what candor requires of most of us – having to “unlearn” a deeply entrenched aversion. Candor comes to us all naturally as children. This is where I see the “whiteness and brightness” still ringing true. Anyone who has spent time with children has experienced pure, unadulterated candor. As parents, we marvel, cherish, and enjoy repeating the stories, the innocent honesty about how children explore their worlds.

Our natural sense of candor is systematically stripped away as we grow up and move into more structured social settings. We’re taught:

“You can think that but don’t say it.”
“Stay away from bullies.”
“Mind your own business.”
“Be polite.”
“Just do what I say.”
“If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything.”
“Don’t ask why.”
“Don’t start trouble.”
“Don’t talk back.”
“Don’t ask so many questions.”

We learn not to challenge, not to question, to mimic our elders and do whatever it takes to “fit in.” And it’s this subtle stripping away that is reinforced over and over during our formative years that gets ingrained so deep in our values that we don’t even realize we’re doing it.

Candor Skills Are Not Innate

Candor skills are not an innate gift that people are born with. The skill requires continuous self-examination and openness to constant personal challenge. These qualities are the exception rather than the rule for most people. In “Outliers,” Malcolm Gladwell points out that outstanding performers share a “10,000 Hour” rule. They have accomplished 10,000 hours of “feedback-rich, mentor filled” practice before they reach “outlier” status of success. And it’s that practice alone that gives them an advantage.

I argue that candor skills are just as demanding and they have to be practiced in a safe, “feedback-rich, mentor filled” setting to constantly challenge the natural aversion we all share. “Outlier” leaders who enjoy the benefits of candor most likely do so because they have more practice than the rest of us.

Specific conditions have to be in place for candor to grow and thrive. An individual’s contribution to candor is only one part, and can easily fail. The relationships and culture in place determine whether or not an individual’s attempts to be candid succeed or fail, and it’s these forces that are so often overlooked or misunderstood by leaders.

The purpose of Grid is to show that candor has to be integrated into individual relationships and culture in ways that encourage it to flourish. Attempts to force it on people or use it in isolation can well do more harm than good. Grid candor skills show people how to practice it in realistic everyday terms that apply to all relationships, workplace, personal, and otherwise.

The only way a person can learn and change behavior is to understand how personal behavior impacts people and results. Sound behavior critique builds candor without malice when comments are given out of a sincere desire to help. Behavior critique is like any skill—it has to be practiced, tested, and adjusted over time to fit every person and team. There is no strict formula or guideline that fits every situation, but there are several characteristics that can make giving and receiving it more effective.

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.

The only effective way to listen when practicing critique is to slow down, suspend reaction, and judgment, and give the person speaking your undivided attention. Sincere listening, especially by people in positions of authority, honors the person speaking, and encourages clear, direct, and succinct communication.
Listening is not easy in a fast-paced, multitasking culture where we often feel unproductive unless we’re doing at least three things at once. Effective listening happens when you put yourself “in the shoes of” the other person and listen to the ideas and comments with respect and objectivity. Then try taking it one step further, allow yourself be influenced by what is being said, even if—especially If—you disagree. This level of empathy is even more important for leaders, because a leader’s intentions shape the tone and character of discussions. If the intention is open and empathetic, others take that as a cue to be open themselves.
A few key steps to practice effective listening:
• Monitor your emotions. As soon as you feel a strong negative reaction flare up in response to a statement striking you as “wrong, bad, ridiculous, etc.,” force yourself slow down, suspend judgment, and really listen. Strong emotional reactions may point to your own personal assumptions or prejudices that are keeping you from listening objectively.
• Ask, don’t interrogate Use open-ended questions that open up rather than narrow discussions. This is especially true for leaders. People learn every subtle cue from a leader’s tone, body language, and other actions that convey intentions. If they sense defensiveness or disapproval, it may alter an answer, and certainly their candor.
• Encourage discussion. Listening conveys respect. Give the speaker your attention with “tell me more” types of expressions and body language.
• Stand in their shoes. Try to understand the speaker’s point of view, even if (especially if) you don’t agree. This may mean asking questions or restating what the speaker said to ensure understanding.
• Clarify your own understanding. Repeat or restate what you’re hearing if needed. This allows the speaker to clarify understanding.
Listening is a key feature of candor skills. For more information about building candor skills in your organization

Miguel Ángel Pla
Presidente y Director General
direccion@miguelpla.com
Teléfono: (81) 83784710

Usted sabe la diferencia entre el rendimiento actual de la empresa y el rendimiento potencial es sustancial.
¿Cómo logra una empresa sentar las bases para la excelencia en el comportamiento? ¿Cuál es la forma de comenzar?
Tal vez el primer paso sea considerar cómo desarrollar un entendimiento de primera mano de los comportamientos, la comprensión más profunda proviene de la experiencia directa y puede lograrse asistiendo a un seminario Grid diseñado para aumentar la comprensión de los principios básicos del estilo gerencial.

La primera actividad en una sesión general en la cual se describen los objetivos del aprendizaje, los cuales incluyen:
• El aprendizaje personal o autoaprendizaje
• El aprendizaje de la solución de problemas en equipo
• El aprendizaje del manejo del conflicto intergrupal
• El aprendizaje de la manera de lograr una cultura organizacional excelente.

Después de esto se inicia el primer proyecto de equipo y esto se basa en lograr una buena mezcla de posiciones y niveles diferentes.

Esto no tiene un líder asignado ni procedimientos sugeridos, la eficacia con la que se trabaje en la solución del problema que se enfrenta es tarea del equipo mismo.

Existe una actividad que implica la interacción entre los representantes de dos equipos diferentes que se reúnen para comparar el desempeño.

Estos puntos que acabamos de tocar se llevan a cabo en el seminario y muchos otros más.

En esta experiencia se conduce a la formación de brechas ya que es significativa para la mayoría de los miembros de una empresa. Se logra hacer que el personal se sienta comprometido a realizar un cambio especial para la empresa ya que toda situación de aprendizaje se basa en un enfoque de convencimiento propio.

Es un proceso de descubrimiento, análisis, comparación, juicio y evaluación de uno mismo. Solo usted podrá sacar conclusiones de lo que aprendió y de sus efectos en su liderazgo dentro de la organización.

Empiezan a suceder cosas y éste es el primer paso importante para transformarse en una cultura de solución de problemas.

Miguel Ángel Pla
Presidente y Director General – MPC
direccion@miguelpla.com
Teléfono: (81) 83-78-47-10

La meta del desarrollo organizacional es ayudar a los miembros de la empresa a obtener un modelo del comportamiento sano y compararlo con el que funciona hoy en día entre las personas que trabajan juntas.

Existe el enfoque del modelo ideal y el real, que ofrece a cualquier gerente la comparación entre lo que es posible y lo que es real. Abre una Brecha entre las dos situaciones, y las brechas intelectuales como la que estamos describiendo pueden convertirse en fuertes motivadoras del cambio. Demuestran la existencia de una discrepancia en el desempeño humano adversa a la productividad, la creatividad, la innovación, la rentabilidad y la continuidad a largo plazo.

Por tanto, poder ver y experimentar brechas es el primer paso operativo hacia la introducción del cambio.
Sin embargo, todos vivimos tan unidos al mundo real que nos es difícil separarnos de él para poder ver lo que es posible. El diagnóstico organizacional proporciona métodos alternativos de recopilación de información que pueden ayudar a las personas a reconocer y medir la gravedad de estas discrepancias como un primer paso en el cambio planeado.

Existen 6 áreas conductuales en las que pueden observarse las dificultades organizacionales:
• Poder y autoridad
• Normas y estándares
• Unión y moral (estado de ánimo)
• Diferenciación y estructura
• Metas y objetivos
• Retroinformación crítica

¿Distinguiste alguno?
La meta del diagnóstico organizacional es clara, pero ¿cómo lograrla? Hay cuatro formas importantes y varios enfoques menores. Ninguno excluye a los demás ni es mejor que ellos.
Quizá una combinación de todos represente el enfoque más sensato, porque los descubrimientos hechos con un procedimiento de diagnóstico pueden validarse comparándolos con los descubrimientos de otros.

Las cuatro metodologías de diagnóstico incluyen:
• Entrevistas
• El diagnóstico en el sitio de trabajo
• La simulación
• La observación participante

Espero sean de ayuda estos puntos acerca del diagnóstico para que pueda ser aplicado a tu empresa.

Miguel Ángel Pla
Presidente y Director General – MPC
direccion@miguelpla.com
Contáctenos: (01800) 8381-363 y (81) 83784710

El Grid Gerencial aclara y cristaliza muchos de los principios fundamentales de la dinámica de la conducta en los negocios.

Cualquier persona que trabaje para una empresa tiene ciertas responsabilidades, bien sea que se encuentre en los niveles más bajos o en los más altos de ella. Si se trata de un gerente, existen dos intereses primarios: uno de ellos es el interés por la producción, es decir, por el resultado de sus esfuerzos, lo cual se indica en el eje horizontal del Grid.

Cada una de estas actitudes, o estilos Grid, descubre las diferentes maneras en que los gerentes piensan en el logro de los resultados con otras personas y a través de ellas.

Estos mismos estilos del Grid describen también los patrones de interacción de los gerentes dentro de una organización, los cuales constituyen la cultura corporativa.

La manera en que los intereses se integran en una actitud expresada en la conducta de una persona, define la forma de ejercer la autoridad.

Los intereses se pueden combinar de muchas maneras, pero sólo unas cuantas de ellas son importantes para comprender el ejercicio de liderazgo y la cultura desarrollada en consecuencia.

Por ejemplo, cuando un alto interés por la gente se combina con un bajo interés por la producción, el líder desea que su personal esté contento y sea amigable. Esto es muy diferente de lo que sucede con el líder caracterizado por un alto interés tanto por gente como la producción.

El punto importante es que, para poder elevar la capacidad gerencial y la productividad del personal, el líder debe conocer los diferentes estilos de liderazgo, estar preparado para seleccionar al más adecuado y actuar de acuerdo con él.

Miguel Ángel Pla
Presidente y Director General
direccion@miguelpla.com
Teléfono: (81) 83 78 47 10

El proceso de cambio en el ambiente de trabajo moderno requiere de liderazgo en vez de autoridad y libertad en vez de control. El liderazgo no radica en tomar la decisión correcta sino en asegurarse que alguien la tome. El único modo de liderar en las estructuras empresariales más planas de hoy en día es creando un sentido de propiedad en todos y cada uno de los niveles de la organización.

Las personas participan con entusiasmo y disfrutar de más satisfacción en el trabajo, compromiso más fuerte, mayor eficacia y ventaja competitiva.

Lograr un cambio duradero y eficaz requiere 3 tareas fundamentales y valientes por parte de un líder.
• Abordar el temor en el lugar de trabajo
• Construir los cimientos para el cambio
• Liderar con el ejemplo

Las personas usualmente favorecen el cambio y hasta lo alientan cuando involucra a otros. El cambio también es bien recibido cuando implica mejorar habilidades.

El temor a esto surge cuando el cambio en cuestión afecta al individuo en lo personal. El cambio se siente amenazador cuando compromete a hábitos, tradiciones y relaciones personales que están probadas y resultan familiares.
El cambio personal desafía tanto a la identidad del individuo como a sus relaciones con el grupo o la organización. El miedo es una reacción natural.

La gente asocia el cambio con una pérdida de control personal. La mayoría creen que el cambio es algo que les ocurre, no algo que escogen.

Esta dinámica es diferente por completo cuando una persona escoge un curso de cambio, entonces el mismo temor le estimula y motiva a buscar el cambio con valentía. Todos hemos experimentado lo inútil que es intentar cambiar a alguien cuando no se trata del curso de acción elegido por él.

Otra fuente de temor se origina en la falta de información y de comprensión cuando no se percibe sinceridad. Esta clase de pensamiento les lleva a retirarse y retraerse en lugar de pensar con creatividad para maximizar los recursos. Aun cuando alguien acepte que el cambio es necesario y quiera cambiar, eso no significa que sepa cómo lograrlo.

Los temores individuales y la resistencia en el lugar de trabajo hacen que las personas retrocedan y empiecen a desentenderse de los problemas incluso aunque tengan las soluciones en sus manos.

Este fenómeno que llamaremos “ellismo” representa todas las excusas que la gente usa para no asumir la responsabilidad por los problemas que, en realidad, podría contribuir a resolver. En lugar de eso, racionaliza la falta de acción por temor a la represalia o culpa a factores tales como regulaciones, procedimientos inadecuados. Cada respuesta es una excusa para evitar el riesgo de intentar algo nuevo o introducirse en el escenario desconocido.
El primer paso y el más importante para abordar el temor y las barreras que crea es comprender, aceptar y reconocer el temor de manera que se lo pueda identificar y tener en cuenta que cualquier esfuerzo es un cambio.

Los líderes eficaces se aseguran disponer de tiempo al inicio de cualquier proyecto de cambio para ofrecer a los participantes un foro abierto donde compartan sus dudas, sus disgustos y sus mortificaciones.

El simple acto de poder expresar una opinión a quienes tienen autoridad aumenta el compromiso personal con el cambio porque las personas sienten que sus puntos de vista han sido tomados en cuenta entonces cuando se tomen decisiones contrarias es más probable que cooperen porque se confían, respetan y comprenden mejor por qué ocurre el cambio.
Un esfuerzo para manejar el cambio de modo que se ocupe del temor, ofrece un modelo sólido, construye relaciones y normas de equipo eficaces, mientras que las directrices ofrecidas eliminarán la mayoría de los problemas en etapas tempranas del proceso, maximizarán los recursos y harán que sea más fácil manejar temas estratégicos.