30Jun 2017

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.

29Jun 2017

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.

29Jun 2017

“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.

29Jun 2017

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

28Jun 2017

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.

27Jun 2017

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.

RSS
Facebook
Twitter