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:

Group relationships greatly influence individual motivation, perception, and action;
Group members conform to behaviors more strongly when competing with other groups;
“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.

Critique is the most valuable skill available for building capacity and culture change but is so often underused or misused.

People often think of critique as an innate gift to which people may be predisposed at birth. The truth is that critique is simply a skill, like a muscle, that needs exercise and practice.

Critique gives people the strength to make a sincere and meaningful contribution to an effort. What often separates a successful team from weaker ones is that even when team members are focused and driving toward a successful conclusion, they don’t lose sight of the need to slow down, listen, question, advocate, and reflect on what is actually happening between them. They are like a successful athlete who can simultaneously execute many difficult expressions of strength, timing, and speed, but who always retains balance for the next move. Any team in balance, whether in the boardroom or on the field, is truly a beautiful thing to watch, but it is even more exciting and rewarding to be a part of one. Successful teams can produce phenomenal results, but they always remain aware of their relationships and pay attention both to those that give them momentum and those that limit effectiveness.

Over time, critique builds a heightened awareness that provides a foundation of security, trust, and confidence. With this trust, people feel free to express themselves openly and without fear of ridicule or recrimination. They also feel free to express and explore anger and other emotions for deeper understanding and relief. In short, they use critique to minimize the stumbling blocks that prevent teams from enjoying a culture that maximizes performance and productivity.

Sound Critique in Teams

When sound critique occurs in teams, discussions lead to increased awareness, candor, creativity, and commitment—features that every team needs. Team members each bring a range of skills and experience together to create a unique mixture of creativity and strength. Members trust each other and feel a deep sense of fulfillment and commitment to a common and clearly understood cause. Despite the complex challenges they face, members operate with amazing speed, agility, and confidence, making accomplishments look natural and easy to the outsider. They gain a reputation of strength and resilience, and inspire other teams to learn how they do it.

There are two basic approaches for critique in team activities:

Conclusion Approach: When a decision is needed. When decisions are required, critique takes on a focused approach where discussions are meant to converge into one best perspective, opinion, or answer. This approach narrows discussion so that people use judgment and evaluation to define clear direction and strategy. For example, a team may use the conclusion approach to resolve a sudden, unexpected problem that threatens a crucial deadline. The conclusion approach is often the most popular and sometimes the only critique used by teams.
Discovery Approach: When ideas and understanding are needed. The purpose of this discussion is more of a dialogue approach where teams gather information and explore multiple perspectives, possibilities, opinions, and answers. This approach opens up discussions for multiple views without the need for an immediate decision or course. This approach is most effective in the early stages of planning when teams are evaluating available resources, possibilities, and creative or alternative courses of action. For example, a team may use the discovery approach to brainstorm ideas for a new product or marketing strategy.

These two approaches do not present an either/or choice. There are times when both are needed in the course of the same discussion, making the distinction even more challenging. Practice pays off when learning to distinguish the two so that teams can “change gears” mentally when needed. Over time, teams learn to slow down and open up the process enough to practice the discovery approach when needed without losing productivity. They can also bring in the discovery approach to exercise judgment and evaluation to narrow options into one best course.

Building a culture of candor is the only way teams can maximize both approaches, especially the discovery approach. Members need to trust each other and feel free to explore unconventional, even wild ideas without fear of recrimination. These early stages are also the best time to air reservations, doubts, and fears that could snowball into impasses once the team launches into its strategy.

The Four Types of Critique

There are four basic types of critique that teams can use to carry out either the conclusion or discovery approach.

Pre-Critique

Pre-critique addresses the fundamental question, “What are we doing and how are we going to do it?” This stage includes gathering the information needed to develop the best possible strategy. Many people feel more comfortable rushing into work because action just feels more productive than discussion or dialogue. Planning is seen to slow momentum, possibly risking even further delay. This “perpetual motion” attitude establishes the ready-fire-aim mentality where teams are too consumed with doing to stop and examine how they are going to work together.

In addition to gathering information and planning a strategy, pre-critique forces people to consider the impact of a strategy. The ready-fire-aim approach means taking on work now and “working out the details later.” When done effectively, pre-critique defines clear criteria for moving ahead prepared.

Pre-critique is the most logical place to practice the discovery approach so that all ideas, possibilities, reservations, and limitations are put on the table before strategy and actual implementation enters the picture. It’s also the best time to discuss fears, doubts, and reservations so teams understand how they could affect productivity. This is also where creativity is born and bred in teams.

Periodic Critique

Periodic critique is a schedule of discussion points that teams plan for certain intervals of progress. These preset critique points allow teams to commit ahead of time to stopping the flow of work to discuss the quality of progress. The schedule may be based on lengths of time (once a week) or on points of accomplishment (at the beginning of a work cycle). This might include setting a weekly meeting or conference call to discuss a project, ten-minute meetings at the beginning of every day, or quarterly sales meetings. Whatever the nature of the discussion, the preset schedule provides an opportunity to step back from the detail level of work to look at the larger, developing picture, and make adjustments as needed.

Concurrent Critique

Concurrent critique occurs spontaneously when someone involved “holds up a stop sign” to address a specific point. This might include calling attention to an immediate problem, making changes in a process or procedure, offering a new idea, or simply expressing reservations or doubts. Concurrent critique is critical for uncovering problems that occur outside the more structured forms of critique so members can prevent or reduce them. This approach demands more flexibility because it means interrupting a process whenever discussion is needed rather than waiting for a scheduled time. Concurrent critique is vital for synergy because problems are caught and resolved in real time, as they occur.

Concurrent critique is the most demanding form of critique for teams accustomed to the ready-fire-aim approach because it means halting momentum to examine how they are working. This is where teams must balance the conclusion and discovery approaches so that critical information can be gathered while considering progress.

In teams with a high level of candor and trust, concurrent critique provides for instant readjustment with minimal disruption to a course of action. In these cases, even subtle comments are often effective because trust and respect are so high in the relationships. If trust is low, a comment such as, “Wait a minute. Shouldn’t we check this against the original order?” can present a major disruption for a variety of reasons—resentment, office politics, or hidden agendas. But in a team with high trust, the reaction is objective and based on what is the best course. For example, “Oh yeah. You’re right, we need to take a look at this.”

Post-Critique

Post-critique involves evaluating an event after the fact and is often the only type of critique used in teams. People wait until after the fact and discuss why an activity succeeded or failed. In teams with low levels of mutual trust and respect, post-critique might be used as a platform for assigning blame and punishment. It can also be used as a platform for rushing into celebration and praise. In both cases, the team loses a valuable opportunity to use the experience to learn and improve effectiveness. In post-critique, examining what worked is as important as examining what didn’t work. In this way, teams can reinforce strengths and examine what caused problems.

Post-critique is most effective when it occurs as close to the event in question as possible so that the actions and impact remain fresh and relevant. The most useful comments are given in specific terms and describe actions that took place rather than focusing on personal accusations, blame, or good intentions.

Teams that reach less than expected results can use the discovery approach to find out what went wrong and why, and to develop a strategy for improvement. Teams that exceed expectations can examine why instead of becoming lost in celebration or complacency. A new resource may have developed that should be examined so teams can assure repeated success. Success may also have resulted from an underestimation of what they could accomplish, meaning they need to raise expectations next time. In either case, post-critique is valuable for keeping teams focused on continuous improvement.

Using Criteria to Build a Foundation for Critique

Criteria provide a foundation for critique by defining up front what teams plan to accomplish and how. Criteria can take many forms, like setting short- and long-term goals, or developing strategic plans and timelines. Criteria can also define emotional boundaries for discussions so that people feel free to speak up. For example, criteria for an open discussion of discovery may be that no one will be criticized for offering new ideas. Once established, these agreed-to criteria provide focus and allow people to move forward with common objectives.

Criteria are most effective when developed in the pre-critique stage where planning, goal setting, and strategies are mapped out. They can also be developed or revised as new learning occurs. They are then used throughout the work process to test the validity of goals and progress. Concurrent critique is especially effective in helping to maintain focus on the goals in place. “We don’t all need to be in this discussion. Can the two of you have a private meeting to work out the details?” With no criteria in place, such comments can be taken personally instead of being objective and focused on the most effective use of team resources and time.

Behaviors can also be addressed more effectively with criteria in place. If a meeting is running late because one person is talking too much, comments can focus on the criteria rather than the person. For example, if someone says, “You’re talking too much and we need to move on,” the recipient is likely to feel judged and insulted. However, with criteria in place, it’s much easier to say, “We agreed to cover 15 topics; discussing this level of detail is putting us behind.” The latter statement focuses on how the behavior impacts the goals.

Criteria are most useful for critique when they remain vivid in people’s minds. Writing down criteria, posting them in a visible place, and revisiting them regularly makes them real and tangible to those involved in a discussion or meeting.

Critiquing Personal Behaviors

A good climate for learning from critique (includes having) explicit norms for creating an open sharing of agreement about the purposes to be achieved, creating and maintaining a problem-solving rather than win/lose environment, inviting confrontational feedback, and making it legitimate to express feelings and emotions.
– Drs. Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton

Critique is most difficult when it addresses personal behavior. Most people follow the old adage, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all.” The truth is, if you are in a room full of 20 co-workers commenting on your work and all comments are positive except one, which remark catches your attention most? Also, which comment often provides the most valuable personal learning? Negative comments, or “constructive criticism” as it is most often called, is the most valuable critique for learning and change. It is also potentially the most damaging, and so demands skill and understanding from all those involved.

The key to effective personal critique is to focus on actions and their impact without evaluating the person as “good or bad.” The only way a person can learn and change behavior is to understand how personal behavior affects people and results. Sound behavior critique builds candor without malice when comments are given out of a sincere desire to help.

The following list describes characteristics of sound critique that make it more effective to give and receive. When these criteria are used, everyone involved can discuss the subject with a more objective focus on personal improvement and increasing productivity.

Evaluate actions, not people: Sound critique evaluates not people, but the behavior or actions they take and the impact these behaviors have on others. A statement such as, “You should not have done that…” passes judgment on a personal level and most likely would be met with defensiveness, resistance, and even anger. A statement such as, “When you interrupted me, I felt distracted and it made me angry” does not evaluate the person, but rather the behavior. In addition, it makes a statement about the impact of the behavior. The person then understands how that specific behavior affected someone else without the personal implications of “judgment.”
Predict consequences: Focus on predicting consequences rather than making moral judgments that indicate acceptance or rejection. Describe the behavior observed and what the consequences would be if the same behavior continues or changes. For example, “If you continue to involve yourself in the day-to-day activities of your department managers, you risk starting a cycle where they depend on you too much.”
Focus on the here and now: In any situation where feedback and critique occur, the most effective comments relate to immediately observable, here-and-now events. Here-and-now critique has the advantage of using specific examples that are fresh and vivid. For example, by saying, “Your positive comments this morning helped me focus on the next phase of the project with confidence,” the person gets immediate feedback about what works well. Capturing feelings while they are fresh also provides a more immediate and timely understanding of how behavior impacts others. Even anger and frustration help focus discussions by capturing the feelings that the behaviors cause. For example, if a person can say, “When you contradicted me without taking the time to get all of the information, I felt cheated,” then he or she feels immediate relief, and the other person understands the impact of the behavior.

The exception to the effectiveness of here-and-now critique is when tempers are so high that people cannot discuss issues objectively. One or both people may be so angry that they risk doing more damage than good by immediately confronting the situation. A temporary cooling-off period may be necessary to give people a chance to gather thoughts and express them more objectively. This may take an hour or a day, depending on the people and the situation. The key to making the cooling-off period work is to use the time to gather thoughts so that discussions can be objective. The emotions are valuable and should be expressed, but in a way that encourages an open, two-way discussion.

Use specific examples: Use specific examples when discussing behavior so people understand exactly where the negative impact is occurring. “I think you’re unqualified,” is non-specific and abrasive. “This is the third time today you have asked for help with this. Do you feel comfortable with these responsibilities?” This is specific, objective, and helpful.
Establish criteria: Teams can use criteria for giving behavior critique the same way they use it to set productivity and financial standards. These criteria establish boundaries and keep discussions focused on actions and their impact on team members and results. They also help teams practice critique skills without feeling threatened. Criteria can center around inquiry (we will focus questions on what happened during today’s meeting only), or on listening (we commit to suspending judgment until all views are discussed), or on authority (the team leader’s view will be given last to ensure all views are heard). These are only a few examples, and they may change as teams develop critique skills and build confidence and trust in each other.

Effective Listening Skills

“Valid listening happens only when what the listener thinks the speaker said conforms with what the speaker intended to convey. This does not mean that what the speaker says is devoid of biases, prejudices, preconceptions, preoccupations, or win/lose attitudes. It means that the listener “hears” these themes according to the speaker’s self-understanding of what is said. The listener may or may not accept them or agree with them, but they are understood.”
– Drs. Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton

A central feature of sound critique is to create a two-way process of talking and listening with the clear intention of learning. Trying to practice critique without effective listening is a bit like being in a country where you do not speak the language. You may be able to pick up a few words here and there, but you will never really “hear” and understand the nuances of conversation unless you know the language.

Listening is another casualty of a fast-food, ready-fire-aim culture. People think they are listening, but instead they are collecting thoughts to prepare a rebuttal or listening for ways to promote their own view. They are listening to rebut, not to learn. There may be a great deal of mental activity going on, but none of it is truly listening.

The only effective way to listen is to slow down, suspend reaction and evaluation while someone is speaking, and give that person undivided attention. Sincere listening, especially by people in positions of authority in the workplace, honors the person speaking, and encourages him or her to be clear, direct, and succinct.

And it’s not easy. For people accustomed to being in control and winning ideas, slowing down and truly listening is difficult, to say the least. To listen effectively, you must put yourself “in the shoes of” the other person and listen to the speaker’s ideas and comments with respect and objectivity. To take it one step further, allow yourself to be influenced by what is being said, even if—especially if—you disagree. This level of empathy is even more important if you are the team leader, because your intentions shape the tone and character of discussions. If you are open and empathetic, other team members take that as a cue to be open themselves.

The objective of critique is to obtain as much information as possible for consideration. This requires thinking through questions and responses more thoroughly ahead of time. If time does not permit the thorough discussion that is needed, then delay the discussion. If an interruption prevents listening, then explain the circumstances and make arrangements to follow up.

Judgment is the First Enemy of Listening

Sound listening requires suspending judgment to remain truly objective while hearing another view. Judgment can immediately divert energy needed to focus on what is being said. True listening is hindered and weakened when people evaluate, form counter arguments, or simply tune out. For most people, suspending judgment is like asking them to stop breathing. We are so accustomed to listening defensively that turning off that mental reaction feels impossible. This is where practice pays off. The key is not to turn off judgments, but to learn to suspend them, withhold reaction, and remain open while listening. Warning: suspending judgment becomes more difficult when the issues under discussion collide with deeply held convictions or fears. Make yourself aware of your own judgmental reactions so you can learn to control them and gather all possible views.

Judgment and evaluation are vital for leadership, but there are appropriate and inappropriate times to use judgment. The goal for sound critique is to manage both so that a larger, collective view and truly creative ideas can be considered when needed. To practice suspending judgment while listening, follow these key steps:

Monitor your emotions. As soon as you feel a strong negative reaction flare up in response to a statement that strikes you as “wrong, bad, ridiculous, etc.,” make yourself slow down, suspend judgment, and listen. Such strong reactions may even point to your own personal assumptions or prejudices that may keep you from listening objectively.
Ask, don’t interrogate. Use open-ended questions that open up rather than narrow discussions. This is especially vital if you are in a leadership position. People learn every subtle cue from the leader’s tone, body language, and other actions that convey intentions. If they sense defensiveness or disapproval, it may alter an answer, and certainly affects candor.
Encourage the speaker to talk more. Listening conveys respect, and people know when they are being heard because they can feel the other person’s attention. For example, look at the person with comfortable yet direct eye contact, smile, nod understandingly, and say, “Yes, go on.” Include “tell me more” expressions and body language like unfolding your arms and facing the person directly.
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 correct interpretation. For example, “Let me be sure I understand what you’re saying…” and then repeat in your own words what you’ve heard. In addition to verifying your own understanding, it gives the speaker the chance to correct any misconception you may have.

Critique Listening Skills on an Ongoing Basis

You, as a speaker, are also in a position to aid others in effective listening. For example, if a listener begins to thumb through a notebook while you are speaking, you might say, “Are you still with me? I was afraid I lost you when you began looking through your notebook.” Some listeners are more attentive when the subject matter is more interesting or challenges them personally. “When we were discussing the budget, you leaned over the table and made eye contact, but since we moved on to marketing, you keep checking your watch.” This type of critique increases awareness and strengthens the ability to listen effectively.

Developing Candor

The level of openness and candor among team members directly impacts the ability to clarify and resolve problems. Candor cannot be forced or imposed but, like trust, it has to be earned and can only develop over time as people practice sound and objective critique skills. As people become confident that comments are sincere, honest, helpful, and intended to increase effectiveness, they feel more willing to speak up.

Authority plays a paramount role in promoting candor. Leaders set the standard by how objectively they give and receive critique. A leader, for example, who complains that people don’t speak up has to seek out opinions through sound inquiry and listening skills. When comments are given, the leader encourages candor by acknowledging and considering the opinions based on merit, not rank.

The Candor illustration, which will be familiar from your individual Grid experience, shows the typical progression of candor that develops as teams begin using and becoming comfortable with critique.

Summary of Critique

Many teams resist deliberately incorporating critique into activities because they have an image of unproductive, lengthy conversations that slow progress. Even the word “critique” sometimes brings sighs of resignation at falling behind schedule. However, when critique is used effectively, quite the opposite is true. Effective critique increases efficiency in every aspect of work. With sound critique, a lengthy meeting with every team member pulled off-line can easily become a five-minute phone call or a meeting among only a few people.

Critique provides the most powerful tool for learning from experience in the workplace. By establishing sound criteria and candor, teams build the trust and respect needed to maximize resources. The climate of awareness generated by critique allows teams to function at a higher, more effective level by moving quickly to define goals and objectives and address and resolve problems. By making the best use of critique, companies and teams can gain several advantages.

Sound team action increases as members learn to identify and resolve doubts and reservations.
Team involvement and commitment increase because members have an opportunity to understand and contribute to defining objectives.
Many problems never arise because critique allows people to anticipate and eliminate potential problems more accurately.

The benefits of critique for learning from experience are self-convincing. Critique allows people to take responsibility for resolving their own problems. As a result, people take ownership of solutions and have deeper commitment and fulfillment when the results are positive. When results are less than expected, members can still feel confident that they gave it their best effort, and can “learn from the experience.”

Critique and candor skills are at the heart of our change management methodology. The first step in any chance process is to have a clear understanding of what you want to change, where you are now. With this insight, our candor skills and transformation process provide a clear path to change.

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

No todos los problemas de dinámica del comportamiento de una empresa se encuentran en los equipos de trabajo naturales. Existe otra dimensión que afecta a la organización tanto lateral como verticalmente, y es la falta de cooperación y de confianza en las relaciones intergrupales.

La relación intergrupal es cualquier punto de contacto entre grupos organizados en el que se requiere algún intercambio para lograr un resultado deseado. Los puntos de contacto se dan entre departamentos, divisiones y regiones, e implican más la dinámica entre grupos que las relaciones interpersonales.

Los aspectos de la eficacia organizacional presentes en los contactos intergrupales incluyen el flujo de información, los acuerdos de coordinación y la toma de decisiones.

Con frecuencia existen tensiones entre el grupo de recursos humanos y varios departamentos operativos. Hay otras tensiones aunque algo apaciguado en Estados Unidos en la última década pero que prometen resurgir con nueva fuerza en el futuro, entre el sindicato y la gerencia y entre unidades operativas y las oficinas federales de varios tipos, particularmente las que regulan las prácticas de seguridad industrial.

Es prácticamente imposible predecir dónde surgirá una dificultad intergrupal particular, y puede darse por hecho que existen en organizaciones de todos tamaños.

Las fallas en las relaciones intergrupales pueden observarse en polarizaciones de tipo crónico que desencadenan la destructividad mutua y producen una deficiente toma de decisiones, y una baja en la productividad, contiendas a muerte y, por último, una reducción de las utilidades.

La confianza en las buenas intenciones de otro grupo es vital para la cooperación; las relaciones intergrupales son muy vulnerables a la falta de confianza. Una vez que surge la desconfianza, va alimentándose a sí misma como una profecía autorrealizable.

El modelo de solución de conflictos intergrupales ayuda a los miembros de ambas partes de una contienda a explorar las condiciones necesarias para restaurar una relación sana basada en la confianza y el respeto.

El diagnóstico de la relación entre dos grupos que requieran cooperar y coordinarse puede ser un primer paso deseable para determinar si el contacto o alguna actividad alternativa podría ser un enfoque provechoso. Se puede recopilar información mediante instrumentos o entrevistas conducidas por gerentes de línea, personal de recursos humanos o personas ajenas.

Los conflictos entre divisiones pueden asumir muchas formas. Por lo general, el conflicto de perder/ganar es completamente evidente; cada unidad lucha por sostener su propio punto de vista, por la buena o por la mala, casi sin interesarse por la destrucción acarreada a la otra.

Al desarrollarse las actividades para lograr el desarrollo intergrupal de las empresas se hacen 5 aplicaciones importantes de seguimiento del aprendizaje Grid a problemas reales de trabajo:

• Cada gerente entiende las teorías de la conducta gerencial y las utiliza para movilizar la energía.
• Se inician proyectos de aplicación para revisar normas adversas a la productividad.
• Cada jefe estudia y es evaluado, tenido la oportunidad de reforzar con calidad de la supervisión
• Se estudia y se evalúa a todo el equipo organizado en el que las personas logren esfuerzos para obtener resultados.
• Se estudian y evalúan las situaciones intergrupales de cada situación ya que han tenido la oportunidad de reforzar la calidad y el carácter de sus esfuerzos de coordinación para lograr objetivos corporativos.

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

La cultura de una empresa y, de manera particular, sus valores humanos, puede apreciarse en su forma más pura en la composición de equipos dentro de los cuales trabajan de manera continua ejecutivos, gerentes, supervisores y empleados.

Se trata de grupos “familiares” o nucleares cuyos miembros son permanentes y se agrupan alrededor de un centro común de responsabilidad organizacional.

Al tomar decisiones y resolver diferencias se utilizan tradiciones, reglas empíricas y supuestos. Todos ellos son atributos de la cultura de equipo.

Una característica de los equipos corporativos que los distingue de los grupos es el grado en el cual se comparten los valores y objetivos en cuanto a la productividad. Si los miembros del equipo tienen dificultades para llegar a un acuerdo sobre el objetivo o encuentran que tienen valores muy diferentes, quizá enfrenten problemas para lograr el consenso.

Esto no significa que los equipos deban intentar convencerse de un modelo de pensamiento organizacional; las diferencias son saludables y estimulantes en relaciones abiertas y francas orientadas a la solución de conflictos.

La formación de equipos implica el perfeccionamiento y el reforzamiento de los procesos del trabajo en equipo. Ayuda a los equipos a identificar las restricciones a la excelencia existente en su propia dirección del negocio.
Otro beneficio de la formación de equipos es el desarrollo de las habilidades de solución de conflictos. Los objetivos se aclaran y las “reglas del juego” se conocen por anticipado; después pueden reconsiderarse si constituyen impedimentos.

La creatividad y la productividad aumentan pues ya no se evitan los conflictos; la franqueza y la honestidad sirven como fuente de estímulo y de ideas, algo apreciado por el equipo como una oportunidad de innovar.
La formación de equipos ofrece una manera de abordar las barreras culturales al esfuerzo de equipo, las cuales deben resolverse para lograr la excelencia corporativa.

Las actividades de formación de equipos se dividen en varios segmentos que hacen énfasis en una serie de dimensiones clave de equipo.

Sin embargo, diremos brevemente que son:

•El poder y la autoridad ejercidos por el jefe.
•Las normas y los estándares que en un equipo ha adoptado y que influyen en las actividades y la conducta de sus miembros.
•Las metas y los objetivos que cubren el propósito del equipo.
•La unión y el estado de ánimo que sirven para unir o dividir a los miembros.
•La diferenciación y la estructura de las actividades de los miembros del equipo.
•La retroinformación y la crítica a los miembros individuales y al equipo completo, que constituyen el sostén del mejoramiento de la eficacia del equipo.

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.