Like the people who compose them, teams have their personalities, too. Those team personalities arise from the mission or missions for which a team has responsibility for, on the one hand, and the characteristics of the members of the team.

This is a short story about two teams whose team personalities differed sharply. Both teams resided in a enterprise in the computer products industry. The Design team was responsible for creating particular computer components. The Process team took responsibility for shepherding newly introduced components through the assembly and manufacturing process.

Members of the two teams differed in their backgrounds and experience. Membership in the Design team mainly consisted of electrical engineers and IT specialists, whereas Process team members mostly were manufacturing and industrial engineers, albeit with computer industry experience.

The mission for the Design team was to conceive of and create designs for innovative and efficient components. The mission of the Process team was to see to it that new components would assure that the production of new components followed a “high-yield” process – lots of components produced efficiently with minimum errors and production rejects.

In working with the Design and Process team we assessed the 10-12 most senior members of each of the teams. The assessment focused mainly on styles of thinking and deciding. Briefly, the assessment generated team member profiles that characterized members’ modes of thinking in terms of speed, analytic thinking, and outcome focus. The chart shown in Table 1 below describes the four styles of thinking and deciding that were measured.

As the table shows, the two styles on the left are action-oriented; the two on the right are more thinking-oriented. The two on the top are “uni-focused,” inclined to focus on achieving one particular outcome or goal at a time. The bottom two are “multi-focused,” aiming at achieving multiple goals or outcomes. The uni-focused styles, Decisive and Hierarchic, tend to stick to a straight course of action to achieve a special goal. The multi-focused styles, Flexible and Integrative follow multiple courses of action to achieve multiple outcomes, not just one. Most people have a primary and secondary style that they use more often than the other styles.

Those courses of action also can shift and change.

These styles describe ways of thinking and decision-making that can differ markedly. For example, when working in the Decisive mode, decisions are made swiftly based on just a few key facts. Decisions made tend to be final. So, fast and focused is the theme of the Decisive style. However, when in the Integrative mode, a lot of information is taken in and considered before a decision is reached, and then the inclination is to look for a strategy that achieves a number of different objectives, not just one. Consequently, speed is replaced by analysis, which takes time. A very focused path is replaced by a strategy calling for plans of attack and actions that might be modified and adjusted as things evolve. In this mode, decisions are processes, not events. Thoroughness and broad adaptive strategies are the theme now. No decision is absolutely final.

The other two styles differ markedly also. The Flexible style is an action-oriented style in which decisions are made swiftly but remain subject to quick change and shifts in direction, just a quickly. The Hierarchic styles is a highly analytic and logic-driven style involving a search for the single best plan or strategy. Once a decision is made carefully, a straight and narrow path is pursued until the intended objective is achieved.

Back to our tale of two teams. Figure 1 shows the average scores of Design team members on the four styles. As the profile shows, the style of thinking that stands out most prominently, is the analytic, multi-focused, Integrative style. The more action-oriented, but nonetheless, multi-focused Flexible style shows up as a secondary theme. And, the action-oriented, and uni-focused style takes fourth place. Clearly, this is a thinking-oriented and exploratory team who has in mind many goals and outcomes. The profile indicates that the team will take its time and look at quite a few options before deciding and formulating a plan and strategy. This profile appears to be a good fit with the team’s charter: designing new components.

Figure 2 shows average scores of Process team members. In this case, the primary style is the fast, action-oriented and uni-focused, Decisive style with the analytic and uni-focused Hierarchic style as secondary. This profile describes a team very focused on getting things done, achieving a high level of productivity, efficiently (but without compromising quality, given the Hierarchic secondary style), and consistently pursuing a particular course of action. The profile appears to be a good fit with the Process team’s mission to actually efficiently produce a high yield of component devices.

So, the indications are that the two teams are set up well with the mindsets necessary to execute their missions. All observers agreed that the teams each performed well.

Nonetheless, things did not work so well in the interface between the teams when they interacted, as they needed to do. The Process team needed to plan ahead for components in the design platform and the Design team needed to create components that would not only work as intended but that actually could be produced effectively and inexpensively. This all required interaction. And, that’s when things become difficult.

At a glance, Figure 3 presents shows the profile graphs for the two teams superimposed over each other. One does not need to be an expert on styles of thinking and decision-making to see from the graphs that communication and mutual decision-making would be difficult. In terms of thinking and deciding, the graphs differ sharply and show two distinctly different mindsets! They are virtually opposites! The graphs basically depict two very different mindsets.

Although, each team seemed well-composed for its respective mission, trouble arose in the interface between the teams. The did need to interact and coordinate. But, their views on issues differed sharply. When we met with members of each team, we heard plenty of griping about the other team.

Design Team Complaints

From the Design team’s perspective, their colleagues on the Process team were anything but cooperative. They wanted everything done right now! They had no tolerance for any delays. Changes to schedules brought loud complaints and arguments. The Process team members, we were told, were downright resistant and obstructive. Senior managers responsible for the teams frequently were called upon to resolve disputes. There were many bruised feelings. Negative images of members of the Process team had become very deep-seated.

Design team members pointed out that they were responsible for creating new, innovative components with improved performance capabilities. Accordingly, they pointed out, that meant that changes were necessary and inevitable. Moreover, they said, the fact that they were supposed to be creating new and improved components that did not already exist assured that things would change. Why couldn’t Process team members understand and appreciate these simple facts, they wondered.

From the Process team’s perspective, the Design team members seemed oblivious to the fact that the components they designed actually had to be manufactured. That simple fact imposed constraints on designs. Even a seemingly simple tweak to a design could require a non-simple change to the manufacturing process. So, any changed should be vetted carefully before becoming part of the new design. Moreover, the absolute number of changes should be controlled carefully to minimize disruptive new manufacturing requirements. But, from the point of view of the Process team members, these considerations seemed to mean nothing to the Design team. To make matters worse, changes not infrequently were made to the changes themselves. A new design would be proposed. The Process team would try to get a head start by making manufacturing adjustments. But, then, the proposed change would be altered and whatever adjustments had been made had to be abandoned or altered again. All of this required time and resources. Inevitably, unanticipated glitches would pop up in production processes and yields would suffer – a very negative outcome for the Process team who were expected to keep yields high. “Why can’t, or won’t, the Design team members just be reasonable and considerate, instead of creating chaos and waste?” they wondered.

You might have noticed that these perceptions, on the part of both teams, that there were some important gaps. Most notably, neither team seemed to appreciate that the other team was behaving responsibly in terms of the team’s charter. The Design never commented on the fact that design changes that complicated the production process and could compromise production yield actually were in direct conflict with the Process team’s performance objectives and compromised the team’s effectiveness. By the same token, the Process team never acknowledged that creating innovative new components was exactly what the Design team was supposed to do and necessarily resulted in design changes that might require different production setups. Each team seemed riveted on its own performance objectives with minimal, if any reflection on the fact that the other team had responsibilities very different from its own.

Even more elusive, was the fact that the members of each team possessed a mindset very well suited to the team’s mission and very different from the mindset of its own members. They didn’t realize that the each need to think in ways quite different from their own team’s way of thinking. Instead, as so often is the case, they implicitly assumed the other team’s way of thinking and behaving was wrong. Things were either right or wrong, and the other team was wrong!

Hardiness is the ability to adapt and perform well under stressful situations. It is a set of psychological qualities that characterize people who continue to perform well under stressful conditions. Hardy individuals have fewer life, work and interpersonal stressors and display mor adaptative coping skills. They are also flexible and adaptable in most situations.  

“The marvelous richness of human experience would lose something of rewarding joy if there were no limitations to overcome. The hilltop hour would not be half so wonderful if there were no dark valleys to traverse.” Helen Keller

Over three decades of research on individuals and teams has identified three drivers of hardiness:

•       Challenge: Seeing change and novelty as exciting and as an opportunity for you to learn and grow

•       Control: Having a sense of self-efficacy and the belief that you can influence outcomes in your life

•       Commitment: Being engaged and seeing most parts of your life as interesting and meaningful

“Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward.”

Vernon Law

If you are looking for strategies to develop Challenge in yourself, consider:

•       Becoming an expert

•       Actively seeking feedback 

•       Being realistic

•       Being open to continuous learning 

•       Trying new things

•       Recognizing lessons in failures

If your goal is to foster Challenge in Others, consider

•       Always emphasizing value of change for learning

•       Modeling enjoyment, fun in variety

•       Treating failures as chance to learn

“The pen that writes your life story must be held in your own hand.” Irene C. Kassorla

If you are looking for strategies to develop Control in yourself, consider:

•       Not entertaining more negativity

•       Developing coping mechanisms

•       Breaking tasks down into manageable chunks

•       Recognizing (what is creating the anxiety)

•       Creating healthy boundaries

•       Increasing your release of endorphins – get physically active!

Consider the following if you would like to foster Control in Others:

•       Providing tasks that are challenging but within employees’ capabilities to achieve

•       Providing resources and time needed to accomplish goals

“I think I overcame every single one of my personal shortcomings by the sheer passion I brought to my work. I don’t know if you’re born with this kind of passion, or if you can learn it. But I do know you will need it. If you love your work, you will be out there every day trying to do it the best you possibly can, and pretty soon everybody around you will catch the passion from you – like a fever.” Sam Walton

Develop Commitment by using the following strategies:

•       Establishing a support system that will help you to prevail

•       Committing to yourself

•       Quieting your mind and focus

•       Recognizing and appreciating that this process is going to be challenging

•       Staying the course

Foster Commitment in Others by considering the following:

•       Giving recognition, awards, praise for accomplishments

•       Being visible; spend time with team and peers

•       Supporting individual professional development (education, learning opportunities)

How can you use your role as a leader to promote hardiness in the people around you? Please let us know at info@integropartners.com

Things are changing in the business world. In fact, change itself is becoming the new constant and this shift has brought with it many challenges that are disrupting the way business is conducted. To make matters even more challenging, at the same time that businesses must grapple with change itself, the rate of change also is accelerating. Moreover, there also seems to be more of everything.

Businesses cannot just focus on one thing that is undergoing change, they must also deal with multiplicity – there are many things that are changing at the same time – new products, new services, and new features to everything. The Internet has become the shopping mall of the 21st Century, which, a few decades ago, replaced Main Street. Brick and mortar retail businesses are closing stores and filing for bankruptcy one after another. For instance, Sears, once the largest company in the world, is teetering. Sears Canada has already filed for bankruptcy protection. Newspapers are on the endangered species list and often look like skinny, physical shadows of the tomes we used to find on our doorsteps. Automobiles soon will be driving themselves. “Uberization” has already transformed everyday transportation in just a few short years. Practicalities change, tastes change, styles come and go, and choices proliferate. Businesses often are under pressure to innovate, to bring out new products or services or new versions of older products. There is no resting on success. Success can be here today and gone in a flash tomorrow as markets shift and change quickly, and new, upstart competitors emerge with new business models that obviate those that formerly seemed sure to bring success.

In 1996 Charles H. Fine at MIT introduced the concept of clockspeed. He used the notion of the Industry Clockspeed as a way to classify to classify the dynamics of an industry and the speed by which changes are taking place within that industry. For example, according to a KPMG study [ref?] the clockspeed for consumer electronics is 2-3 years. The automotive industry has a seven year clockspeed; commercial aerospace has a 20-year clockspeed. These clockspeed numbers continue to shrink year by year. Thomas Myers and others at KPMG point to a clockspeed dilemma facing major industries now. Typically, in the past, each major industry was subject to a legacy clockspeed driven by capital intensity, new product development costs and competitive intensity. However, Myers and his team believe that industries are facing not only faster clock speeds, but sometimes multiple clockspeeds simultaneously as new entrants enter their industrial ecosystems and bring with them disruptive innovations.

Things get even more dynamic with multiplicity on the rise. Not only are businesses straining to keep pace with change and its hectic pace, in many instances they are juggling many different things that are going on simultaneously, multiple projects, multiple units, many different customers and stakeholders. An example is a high tech electronics components producer with many different product lines and units in forty-two different locations around the globe! Multiplicity makes achieving focus problematic. And to add further to the challenges, the multiple products, services, units and locations often are interconnected and interdependent in ways that must be addressed. Complexity is a good one-word, catch-all for the circumstances with which enterprises must cope. Things are not merely complicated; they are complex in terms of multiplicity, uncertainty, change, interdependencies, and speed. How to manage the ever-increasing complexity of business today?

The toolbox of management and leadership tools is barely adequate to meet the demands. Most of the tools in the toolbox were developed at a much less complex and hectic time. In many respects, this leaves businesses attempting to manage complexity with tools and techniques better suited to the Nineteenth Century than to the Twenty-First. For example, the organization chart, a mainstay of management for the better part of two centuries, was devised as a tool for specifying division of labor and coordinating work. With the chart, one can specify who does what and who will coordinate with whom and, at least in the past, where people who must interact will be located. Who knew in the Nineteenth or early to mid Twentieth Century that teams composed of people doing interdependent work might be spread out across three continents? There wasn’t a chart for that. The functional organization chart gave way to the product organization chart where, at least, people working on a particular product or product line would be co-located. But, as complexity picked up, the matrix management structure as defined in an attempt to deal with multiple interdependencies. But, to work well, things cannot be changing all of time.

There cannot be multiple functions, products, locations and markets to coordinate. What sort of chart could be devised to handle all of this? With the sort of complexity with which we are dealing now, dividing up the work – specifying a division of labor and responsibilities is essential. No one has the knowledge, skills, and bandwidth to handle it all. But, dividing stuff up is just the beginning. The rest of the challenge cannot be handled by drawing more lines and arrows on an organization chart. To cope with the extreme complexities of business now takes much more than an organization chart. It takes a mindshift – a new way of thinking tuned to complexity. Some portion of the talent in an organization must have a particular mindset geared to track multiplicity, change, and interdependence. That mindset must be of a kind that can hold multiple thoughts and priorities in mind, in real time. It is the kind of mindset in which one sees a big picture – a mindmap, so to speak – that is a dynamic, moving picture in which the parts are in motion and are mutually influential. Impossible, one might think! But, fortunately, that is not so. There are people for whom this is a natural way of thinking.

Most likely, they have always been there noticing differences, variations, trends and possibilities. In the past, there likely was the need for this kind of thinking was limited. Businesses had to strive for efficiencies needed to produce stuff and keep costs down. That kind of focus is still needed. But, with the rise of complexity, this new mindset is much more in demand. In a way, this is another form of multiplicity. Inasmuch as we are dealing with multiples of most everything – products, locations, and markets – we need multiplicity in the way that people think. This means we need diversity of thinking – the kind of diversity that cannot be embodied in any one individual. Instead, we need teams composed of people with diverse mindsets, diverse ways of thinking.

The particular mindset we mentioned a moment ago combines big picture thinking with what we call multi-focused thinking. Ideally, these qualities of thinking coexist with interpersonal skills or behaviors needed for dealing with diverse other ways of thinking. These thinkers must grapple with diversity in both things and people.

In order to deal with the complexities teams now face requires a mindshift – a mindshift into a mindset geared to handle the high levels and shifting dynamics of complexity. 

Adopting an appropriate mindset is not necessarily an easy accomplishment, unless that appropriate mindset happens to be your natural state of mind. There are a variety of mindsets that compete for our thinking and a lot of this competition takes place unconsciously and out of our awareness. So, awareness is a key factor in mastering the fine art of mindset navigation.

In this article, we will take you on a brief tour of the key mindsets that compete for our thinking. 

Moving through Different Mindsets

To give you a sense of what we mean by mindset, let’s take a quick look at a couple of very different mindset examples. 

Pressed to act. Our first example begins with a strong sense of pressure and the urge to take action. We feel very pressed. There just isn’t enough time to do what we need to do! Adding to the feeling of pressure, the things that need to be done need to be done right now. There’s no time to dawdle. In fact, there’s hardly any time to think. We feel impatient. We just want to focus on getting things done, preferably one at a time, one right after the other. In this mindset we focus on things that are immediately at hand. There’s no sense in thinking about future developments; things probably will change. So, we will take care of the future when the future becomes the present. Meanwhile, we are particularly aware of the passage of time; we hear loudly the tick of the clock.

An expanse of time and possibility. Our second example is a very different mindset. In this one, there’s no sharp sense of pressure. We feel that we actually have time to think and we may feel that a good deal of thinking is needed. We feel that we can and should explore a bit, look at situations from different angles and, examine a number of different possibilities before taking action. There is no one goal that outweighs all others. In fact, there are multiple, overlapping goals or outcomes that should be achieved because we see the situation we face as multi-faceted and dynamic. So, no one course of action will quite do the job. In this mindset, the clock doesn’t quite tick as loudly as when we were in the first mindset above. We can step back and look at a broad range of choices without feeling the pressure to decide and act immediately.

These are two radically different mindsets, but most of us will experience each of them from time to time. When we do, the world around us will seem very different. For the moment, we when we are in one mindset, we might forget having felt so different when we were in the other mindset. 

This is what we mean by mindset. You might experience them as mood swings, simply because you will have very different emotional and perceptual reactions to these states of mind. Because, we differ from one another as individuals, some of us might prefer one mindset much more than the other. Even if it isn’t our preference, we might find ourselves in one of these states of mind much more often than the other, simply as a matter of habit.

Mindset Structure and Differences

The particular mindsets that are of interest to us in this book rest on modes of thinking that, elsewhere, we have described as styles of thinking and deciding[1]. However, we want to emphasis here that these styles are not just about thinking. They influence our perceptions and our emotional states, not just the decisions we make. They determine what we notice, what we attend to, the things we dwell upon, and the things we ignore or dismiss, as well as the value that we attach to the objects of our attention and to our decisions and actions.

There are four basic styles that we have in mind. These styles differ from one another in terms of two key factors:

·      The amount of information we take in and consider (“information use”) when solving problems, making plans or deciding on courses of action.

·      The number of courses of action (“solution focus”) we include in our decisions when we decide on strategies or actions for a situation requiring a solution.

With these factors in mind, here are the four basic styles that underlie the different mindsets we describe.

No absolute goods and bads. As different as they are, these decision styles are neither good nor bad in any absolute sense. The styles can only be judged as good or bad in the context of the situations in which they are used. So, it’s a question of fit. Does the style fit the situation at hand? If it does, the inherent strong points of the style will emerge. If the style doesn’t fit the situation, the inherent limitations of the style will prevail.

A matter of habit. For the most part, the styles we use are driven by habits formed by experience. For example, over the course of time if one works in a very fast-paced environment where time is of the essence, the tasks required are familiar and relatively simple, and getting things done productively and swiftly is critical, the action-oriented and focused style that we call Decisive will eventually become more and more a habitual way of thinking and acting. That style will serve to allow one to get a lot of things done quickly. In the right context, there may be all kinds of cues, encouragements and rewards to operating in the Decisive style, to the point where the person doesn’t even notice the style as being anything other than a natural way of thinking and behaving. 

As long as a person stays in this kind of environment where the emphasis is on making quick decisions, moving on to the next task, and getting things done, that Decisive style will likely be a winning style. However, if the person moves into a different kind of work circumstance, that same style might not work so well. Suppose the person has been working at a junior management level in an operations unit and comes to be seen as productive and very capable of driving results and, as a result is offered a promotion. Suppose also that the promotion involves a move into quite different position, where quality is more important relatively than sheer productivity. 

In this new position, without thinking about it directly, there likely will be a natural and strong temptation to continue doing things the way that has worked so well in the past. But that Decisive style may not be so well suited to maintaining and boosting quality. A deeper level of analysis may be needed before reaching decisions. Moving too fast may create problems and lead to errors that weren’t obvious without taking the time to think things through more thoroughly.

So, it may come to pass that a person who has been encouraged and rewarded in the past for be fast and decisive suddenly finds herself or himself running into unfamiliar and unexpected problems. The old ways aren’t working so well.

Here’s an example. Some years ago, we did a lot of team development and coaching work with a company that operated a fleet of tanker ships. During this time, we met Constance, who was a First Mate on one of the ships. Some years passed, and we encountered Constance again. In the intervening years, she had changed the direction of her career. She was still with the same company, but she had come ashore and was now pursuing a management career track in the headquarters of the shipping company, and the company had sent her off to obtain an Executive MBA degree at the University of Southern California. Now, she was working as a liaison between the home office and the corporate parent of the shipping company.

When we met her again, we said, “So, Constance, how do you like your new job?” She replied, “Well, at first I really felt lost. I wasn’t sure exactly what to do and how to do it in this new position. But, then, one morning before going to work I thought about the day ahead. It suddenly came to me that there wasn’t a single decision I need to close during that day! Sure, there were decisions that eventually needed to be taken, but they revolved around longer term issues. Nothing urgent was pending! Then, I reflected on my old job as Mate back in the fleet. Every day, there were many decisions that needed to be made! They weren’t necessarily complicated, but they did have to be made and closed each and every day. That’s when ‘I got it!’ I realized that the sense of urgency and ready-for-action mode I normally felt was driven by my old reality and had followed me ashore, as a matter of habit. I saw that my circumstances were radically different now. With this realization, I felt less driven – at least less driven to decide right away and act. I began to step back and think things through more before deciding. Now, I feel more in synch with my circumstances in this new position.”

As Constance learned, particular styles of thinking and deciding can color the way we see things and how we react. When they persist beyond the circumstances in which they’re needed, they create a sense of disharmony and they can compromise our performance. But, when they align with the circumstances with which they fit best, things fall into place and we often can feel that we are making the right kinds of moves with a good sense of timing.

Styles and Mindsets

We ventured into this brief tour of styles and thinking to give you a better sense of what we mean by mindset and how they will both reflect and drive the way you think and decide. We want you to gain insights into your own shifting mindsets. In particular, we want you as leaders to recognize the mindsets that are especially well suited to dealing with the heightened degree of complexity that you most likely face at work. Let’s briefly summarize the basic mindsets associated with each of the styles of thinking and deciding we described above. Then, we will look at the kinds of circumstances they best fit and we will give special attention to how well they are suited to dealing with the dynamics of complexity.

The Decisive Mindset

You may already recognize that our first mindset example we described is the one associated with the Decisive style of thinking. This mindset is particularly geared to taking action to move things forward and get things done and concluded. As we described, a strong sense of urgency and feeling of time passing are hallmarks of this mindset. When you’re in this mindset, you focus on things that must be done now, today, tomorrow or, maybe, next week. Next month and beyond lies over the horizon, in the future, and you will decide how to handle things in the future when you get there. Meanwhile, you will deal with first things first. Because in the Decisive mindset you especially want to make progress and move forward, when you need to take action, or solve a problem, you naturally will want to do things in a pragmatic and practical way that will actually work with complications. “Will this get the job done?” is a primary concern driving decision-making. You prefer clarity and certainty over guesswork and experimentation. Efficiency is an important consideration. You look for ways to get things done quickly and easily. Risky and complicated methods will be by-passed is in favor of the “tried and true.” You tend to see the simplest way as the best way. The key marker of this mindset is the strong sense of an urge to take action. Once you see a way forward you will want to act on it. At this point, the issue is closed. Going back and rethinking things is not an option unless circumstances unequivocally show that a different way forward is required.

The Flexible Mindset

The need to take action is a key feature of the Flexible mindset. However, now, there are many actions that could be taken. You see all kinds of options and possibilities. So, you see one that stands out a bit and you act on it. But, then, just as quickly, you might see a different possibility and shift direction, leaving the first one behind. In fact, you find that each time you look at a situation, you see it in a somewhat different light and, consequently, new possibilities come to mind. You have an acute sense of change. You may sense it coming. You notice things going on around you. And, when things change you change. Right away! If you choose a course of action that doesn’t seem to be working out as hoped, then you usually can see a better suited course. Course correcting is a natural part of life in a changing world. It simply does not make sense to keep following a course of action that no longer fits the circumstances. You’re also not inclined to get into detailed analyses. That could feel pedantic and you surely do not want to get bogged down in a lot of complicated thinking when things are likely to take a different turn anyway.  You prefer to stay loose and ready to adapt and act and then take things as they come. In dealing with people, you’re quite willing to go along, at least for the moment. There’s no point in arguing or debating about what to do when it simply might not make any difference later on. 

The Hierarchic Mindset

When you are in the Hierarchic mindset, you feel the need to think things through in a fair amount of detail. You usually have a very clear idea of what you are aiming for and the outcome you want to achieve. More than likely in any circumstance you can identify a particularly important or desirable goal – one that makes a real difference. You take things seriously, because you are aiming for something important and worthwhile. Consequently, it only makes sense that you should carefully look for the best, most certain way to achieve the desired outcome and hit your target as accurately as possible. So, you study the facts carefully and then you develop a plan – very likely a detailed plan with things thought out logically and sequentially. You might have some contingencies in mind, too, that you might put into action to get to that important outcome if obstacles pop up. Thinking ahead is necessary. You are not inclined to just get going and then proceed by the seat of your pants. Once you do decide on a strategy and a course of action, your propensity is to stick with it and follow it through until you achieve what you set out to do. If something is worth doing . . . it’s worth doing well. You find that commitment, thoroughness, and persistence pay off!

The Integrative Mindset

The Integrative mindset, of course, was the second example we gave at the beginning of this section. When you are in this mindset, the world seems like a big place. There is a lot going on and there are a lot of possibilities. Your propensity is to step back and look at things in a broad and quite detailed way before taking any action. You often feel curious and you sometimes poke into corners to see what might be there. In this mindset, you don’t feel the pressure of time bearing down upon you. In fact, you can sometimes lose track of time and, then later, you’re surprised at how much time has passed. In stepping back to look broadly at situations, you can see that there are different parts and pieces to the situation and you also see, at least in general terms, how those pieces interact. You see how one part affects another and, in turn, how the other part can impact the original part. When you feel most relaxed, you might enjoy just playing around with “what if” scenarios. This helps you grasp the dynamics and recognize new possible courses of action. In taking action, there normally are multiple actions that need to be taken because there are many outcomes that are important, and no one course of action serves them all. Moreover, you often can see or sense second and third order outcomes of any action, not just the immediate outcome. You sketch out plans, but you always like to have some alternatives in mind. When you put things in motion you stay tuned to see how things are working and how you may need to tweak and adjust your actions as things evolve. You recognize that the world is a complex and changing place.

A Hybrid Mindset

As you can see, these four mindsets are each based on a particular style of thinking. As such, they are rather pure. In actual practice, we find that people may bridge a couple of styles.

What is your preferred mindset? Based on your observations, how would you assess your team’s overall mindset? Are there any opportunities for a mindshift?

[1] See K. Brousseau et al., The seasoned executive’s decision-making style. Harvard Business Review, February 2006.

Creating the right conditions for success is key to leading effective teams – in natural disasters or the workplace.

“Teams can achieve incredible results. My mission is to elevate the performance of teams everywhere. Influencing a few factors in teams can have results in big returns.”Armin Pajand

Armin Pajand knows what effective leadership looks like. He's seen how teams can be led in times of crisis, rise to meet sudden and unexpected challenges or ultimately come up short. Pajand is a recognized expert on leadership and not just in theory – he knows it because he's lived it. Back in 2017 he moved to Houston just days before Hurricane Harvey decimated the region, taking a position as Associate Director for Leadership Development at Doerr Institute amid disastrous conditions. But Pajand put his skills to work immediately, helping to organizing more than 2,000 student volunteers in a massive clean-up and recovery effort. “Our team was mobilizing and coordinating volunteer efforts out of our office,” said Pajand, advisory board member for the DCE's Organizational Leadership & Communication certificate program. “It was a success because of collaboration with partners we brought onboard, like the Center for Civic Leadership and our student association.” Leading a team requires a distinct skill set, whether on the front lines of disaster or in the office conference room. It's all about managing emotional needs, providing the right conditions and structure for team members to succeed. It's an especially relevant issue in today's environment, where disruption and accelerated change have become the new normal. From years of experience, research and education, Pajand has developed a paradigm that defines what is required for successful leadership – and it's often not at all what you might think.

Teamwork in the 21st century

Learning to develop and lead highperforming teams is clearly more important than ever. A Deloitte study of 7,000 organizations shows a significant rise in teams being employed to drive strategy and execution, including 80% of Fortune 500 companies. And 92% of employees view teams as critical to an organization's success. Effective teamwork is essential to meeting the challenges of today's challenged global marketplace, but data suggest many teams perform sub-optimally, creating an urgent need for innovative, high-performing team leaders. “I've found that the most effective teams bring their best ideas, information and effort, and listen closely to one another,” Pajand said. “Then they integrate it all interdependently to produce outcomes that are superior to what they could accomplish individually. Members also need to be flexible enough to continue to learn and improve their performance.” Low-performing teams, on the other hand, withhold their best ideas and information, and don't put forth their best efforts for reasons they might not even understand. “Teams are hotbeds of emotion, and they typically perform poorly when their emotional needs such as shared understanding, control and sense of belonging aren't met,” he added. “When that happens, members are disengaged, not listening or asking questions. They lack trust and cooperation and avoid conflict.” It might seem counterintuitive, but conflict can be an important element in effective teamwork. It's one of the common misconceptions that Pajand identifies in his research. An Oxford graduate and current industry professor at Texas A&M – as well as a noted global consultant and advisor across multiple industries – Pajand believes that harmony is overrated. In fact, smooth interaction among collaborators, if the objective is to avoid debate and conflict, is detrimental to a successful outcome. “Research shows that conflict, when wellmanaged and focused on a team's objective, can generate more creative solutions than you might see in groups free of any conflict. For example, we found in earlier research on symphony orchestras that slightly grumpy orchestras played a little better as ensembles than more harmonious groups.”

Managing emotional needs

A frequent speaker on brain science, Pajand has identified key factors that can guide a team to produce dynamic and optimal results. To do that, it's important for leaders to understand System 1 brain functioning, a concept developed by psychologist Daniel Kahneman that's popular in marketing. Simply put, even when we believe we're making decisions based on rational considerations, our System 1 biases, prior learning and intuition influence most of our choices. In a team setting, this can manifest in negative behavior including “attribution error,” a tendency to attribute success to ourselves and failures to others. “It's an unconscious bias that most everyone is guilty of at times,” Pajand said. “People believe they're responsible for their successes, but when things don't turn out right it's because of someone or something else – the boss, other team members, or the organization as a whole. Attribution error prevents teams from looking at their results clearly and collaborating on creative solutions.” Perhaps most importantly, the most effective leaders realize it's not all about them. Think of it as being the author of a play, or conductor of a symphony. “Leaders are indeed important in collaborative work, but not in the ways we usually think,” Pajand said. “The most powerful thing a leader can do to foster effective collaboration is to create conditions that help members competently manage themselves.” Establishing the right conditions: Investing in just a few factors can have an outsized return. Pajand suggests that creating the right conditions from the outset accounts for about 60% of the variation in how well a team eventually performs. The quality of the team launch accounts for another 30%, and real-time coaching accounts for only about 10%. When composing a high-performing team, it's important to keep it as small and diverse as possible, he said, with the right number and mix of members, each with task expertise and skill in working collaboratively. Leaders also need to create a compelling direction and collective mindset by fostering a common identity and common understanding. Leaders need to ensure that the team has a clear set of norms or rules of engagement and can access the necessary resources at the organization. “Teamwork isn't magical,” he added. “There's a lot more to it than gathering up some really talented people and telling them in general terms what is needed. Although you may have to do a bit of political maneuvering to get what is needed for effective collaboration from the broader organization, it is well worth the trouble.”

In his consulting practice, IntegroPartners, Pajand and his experienced team work with a variety of global organizations using their scientifically developed assessment, StyleViewTM, to gain valuable insights into team decision-making behavior.

The Team Diagnostic Survey™ (TDS) is the world’s #1 team effectiveness instrument developed by renowned Harvard scholar-practitioners Drs. Richard Hackman and Ruth Wageman. The online survey assesses teams on the 6 conditions of team effectiveness that predict up to 80% of a team’s ultimate success. The resulting 27 page report helps teams and team leaders zero in on the levers that lead teams to becoming exceptional. The TDS™ is the most rigorous and widely-validated team effectiveness instrument on the market today. The survey ensures that your team gets off to the right start. The TDS can be used as a stand alone assessment for diagnosing teams as well as incorporated as an essential component of a teambuilding or team coaching process.

Key Benefits

The Team Diagnostic Survey (TDS) is the world #1 ream effectiveness instrument. Some advantages of using the TDS with your team include:

• World-class research underpinnings by top researchers on teams and teamiong

• Widely validated on thousands of teams in a diverse range of industries, sectors and organizational levels

• Provides team leaders and team members the most powerful and time0-efficient levers for improving team’s performance

• Clearly identifies the missing links to team’s success

The TDS™ Framework

The TDS™ Framework starts by identifying the 6 conditions that create an ecosystem that gives rise to team effectiveness. The 6 conditions are divided into 2 groups each with 3 conditions: 1) The Essentials – these are foundational conditions that are most critical to get right first and include: Real Team, Compelling Purpose & Right People. 2) The Enablers – these act as accelerants that propel the team forward and include: Sound Structure, Supportive Context and Team Coaching. The TDS doesn’t stop there. It then shows how these 6 conditions influence a team’s Key Task Processes (Effort, Strategy, and Knowledge & Skill) and ultimately Team Effectiveness (Task Performance, Quality of Group Process and Member Satisfaction).

Failure to recognize the difference between the merely complicated and the truly complex can bring an enterprise to its knees. Too often, the telltale, differentiating cues remain hidden in plain sight by pattern-bound ways of thinking much better suited to the past than to the present and future. Differentiating the complicated from the newer, complex systems that are coming to dominate most aspects of the world around us, both in terms of business products and operations, and systems of thought is more than a useful exercise. Aligning styles of thinking with the specifications of the systems with which people need to engage is fundamental to the successful handling of those systems.

Complicated Systems vs. Complex Systems

Complicated systems and complex systems are similar in that both are likely to consist of numerous parts that ultimately must fit together in coherent ways. Both can be difficult to handle, and both require a good deal of thinking. However, the similarities tend to end here. Complicated systems are comparatively more stable and less subject to change. Things can be anticipated in advance. Once a product or task has been handled successfully, the same procedure or method can be applied to similar products or tasks with a good deal of confidence that similar results will be achieved. The system may consist of many parts and the ways to handle those parts may require a great deal of training and experience to master. That mastery usually requires being trained and experienced in a specialized body of knowledge and skills. For example, civil engineers know the parameters that need to be detailed when designing a bridge. Bridges can be very complicated structures; however, we have been designing and building bridges for many centuries and the fundamental principles of bridge design are well documented. Predictability is inherently a feature of a complicated system. That is, the end goal or desired outcome is known, even if the path to achieve that goal may be long and might contain numerous decision points. However, the length of the path and the decision points are known in advance, and the criteria for turning one way versus another at the decision points are known. With sufficient training and experience, plus appropriate attention to detail, the correct turns can be identified with confidence. Things proceed linearly, from A to B to C, according to one or more established sets of rules or algorithms. Consequently, the handling of complicated systems can be mastered and the correct rules and procedures can be codified. Referring again to bridge design, many factors have to be taken into account in the design of a long suspension bridge: the extremes of weather, currents, and winds, and the weight of materials are examples of the many parameters involved. However, most of these parameters can be estimated accurately from historical records, known properties of m aterials, and from technical specifications. Once they are known, experienced engineers can put together a detailed blueprint for the bridge. Then comes the complicated task of building the bridge. As in all large construction projects, many groups of specialists and skilled workers will be needed. Each group has its specialized job to perform. Integration and coordination during the construction are essential, however, the individual group of specialists need not worry about such matters. They do their individual jobs and the general contractor overseeing the construction assures that the sequencing and integration of parts goes forward according to an established plan. Complex systems are quite different, and a key differentiator is uncertainty. Things are not nearly as predictable. In a complex system, the uncertainty may arise from two different system features: change and multiple interdependencies among the parts. The parts tend to change or evolve, as do the relationships among the parts. Any one part of the system might be influenced by multiple other parts and, in turn, might influence a number of other parts. Linearity vanishes; things cannot be programmed in advance to proceed in a straight sequence from A to B to C. Consequently, the design and configuration of parts might need to be negotiated in real time based on the dynamic state of the system and the multi-directional interdependencies. For instance, in an automated weather prediction system there are many mutually interacting variables that determine predictions: atmospheric pressures at the surface and aloft, air mass positions and movements, and ocean currents, to name a few. Changes in any of them can influence any of the others, moment by moment, as per the classic “butterfly effect.” Such systems are far more accurate now than in the past, aided as they are by global satellite tracking systems. Nonetheless, their accuracy remains relative and far from absolute. As a rule, methods that proved successful for dealing with a particular complex system cannot be counted on to work the same way for handling a similar system in the future. This is because similarity inevitably is a relative quantity in the realm of complex systems. No two systems will be exactly alike. If they were exactly alike, they would not be truly complex systems.

The Complicated Past

The Industrial Revolution sparked a huge leap forward in the design and construction of massive and elaborate machines and products. Roads, ships, automobiles, aircraft, spacecraft, computing systems, factories, and buildings of huge proportions demonstrate this. The rise of scientific management as conceived by Frederick W. Taylor in the early Twentieth Century and as implemented in mass production operations worldwide is perhaps the ultimate expression of rules for handling complicated systems. According to the dictates of scientific management, everything is specified and programmed in advance, right down to the exact moment-by-moment sequence of motions made by workers in those operations. Not surprisingly, in the business world, that complicated past continues to influence operations today. Organizations are set up like elaborate, complicated machines to produce work. Specialized units based on function, product or geography are set up so that each unit can perform its specialized role, leading ultimately to the output of standardized products and services. Employees within each unit are assigned specific “Key Performance Indicators” (KPIs) on which they are exhorted to concentrate their attention and energies. The idea is that if we all just focus on doing our jobs, the right stuff will get produced in the end.

The Complex Present and Future

Change is a hallmark characteristic of complex systems, not complicated systems, and in the new millennium, things are changing and the pace of change is accelerating. Moreover, it is now commonplace for a business’ operations to span the globe. Consequently, the communication requirements within an enterprise must address asynchronous time zones and cross many national, cultural, and market boundaries. In many instances, the demand for new and innovative products and services means that an enterprise must keep moving faster and faster. Companies must stay abreast of swiftly evolving market trends, while dealing with competitive threats that seem to appear instantly, seemingly out of nowhere. New technologies can spring up overnight that can change the entire shape of what once was a stable and longstanding market. Think of Kodak, Xerox, and Motorola, former titans of industry whose business models were rendered almost obsolete right in front of them. One could argue that they had become pattern bound by their past successes in much less complex times, even though their products were built upon highly complicated technologies. At the moment, fast-moving startup firms such as Uber and AirBnB are radically altering parts of the local transportation and hospitality industries while current occupants of those industry segments struggle to compete using traditional practices and procedures. Few enterprises can rest on their laurels and survive. Silo Mindsets Nonetheless, perhaps reflective of the past, complicated systems and the mindsets engendered by them, many products are designed and produced within different units that each has its own standard procedures and highly specific performance objectives. That is, each unit has its own set of KPIs. Often those KPIs are so specific and narrowly focused within each unit that 3 the various units become silos of internal focus. The need for integration becomes eclipsed or is treated as “someone else’s job.” When the work is merely complicated, relegating integration to third parties or individuals higher in a chain of command might work just fine. But where the work is truly complex, a hierarchy simply cannot anticipate and adequately manage the integration challenges, many of which can only be identified and handled on a real-time basis.

Mixed Systems: Complicated and Complex

Even the most complex projects today will involve pockets of highly complicated work. Producing a smartphone requires the efforts of numerous specialists: device engineers, firmware architects and programmers, and materials and packaging specialists, to name a few. In other words, most systems are hybrid combinations of the complicated and the complex. In complicated and complex hybrid systems, integration is the chief challenge. Assuring that the varied parts of a system perform their specialized functions and work together can be a formidable task. One of the biggest challenges arises from the fact that highly complicated work requires a different mindset, or way of thinking, than is needed to handle highly complex work. Yet, in many cases, the mindset best suited to handling complicated work is tasked with the handling of complex work. In order to address the particular challenges of a given system, rather than relying mainly, or only, on standardized management procedures, it is essential to think in a way that mirrors the qualities of the system. Fortunately, styles of thinking can easily be mapped to system qualities.

Styles of Thinking

Just as systems can be described as complicated or complex, so can styles of thinking. Briefly, complicated and complex styles of thinking both fall into a category that my colleagues and I call “maximizing,” or analytic, as distinct from “satisficing,” or action-oriented. Maximizing refers to the tendency to maximize intake of information and analysis of that information when thinking or deciding. Satisficing refers to the tendency to take into account a minimal number of facts or items of information when thinking and deciding – i.e., one is quickly satisfied that a workable solution can be identified by just a few facts. Both categories, maximizing and satisficing alike, styles further differ in the extent that they focus in a structured way on achieving a specific, pre- established goal or outcome as opposed to being responsive to multiple objectives or outcomes that themselves can shift and change as a situation 4 evolves. In our terms, some styles are uni-focused, while others are multi- focused. In dealing with systems, our experience shows that all styles are needed, but not necessarily in equal measure. The less analytic, more action-oriented styles, Decisive and Flexible, are useful for dealing with immediate operational issues that arise: assuring that things are moving forward and that short-term operational problems are addressed and decisions are made. However, in the realm of complicated and complex systems, the more thinking oriented, maximizing styles have a special role. Complicated and complex systems can both be demanding in that a lot of thinking is needed. The maximizer styles, Hierarchic and Integrative, share this quality – both styles are given to doing a lot of thinking. For the purposes of this paper, I will only be giving attention to the two maximizer styles.

The Hierarchic style, shown is an analytic, uni-focused, and structured mode of thinking and deciding. When a Hierarchic thinker takes on a problem requiring a solution, the tendency will be to examine a problem thoroughly and to carefully break it into its constituent parts for study or examination. The analysis normally takes place with a clear objective or desired outcome in mind that serves as the focal point. That objective typically is pre-established based on previous training, experience, logic and/or established policy or rules. With this objective in mind, the thinker will look for a best path or strategy to achieve that goal, ideally one that will stand the test of time. Once a path or strategy to achieve the objective has been identified, the inclination is to put together a detailed plan centered on the key objective and then to stay the course until the objective has been achieved. Clearly, the Hierarchic style is a complicated way of thinking; a mindset that is well suited to handling complicated systems. Its analytic, detail-oriented, and highly procedural and focused qualities fit well with the intricate and structured aspects of such systems.

The Integrative style correspondingly, is a better fit with complex systems. Integrative thinkers can be equally as analytic as their Hierarchic-thinking counterparts, but in a much less structured way. In this mode of thinking, the tendency is to keep one’s peripheral vision fully activated and to look at the broad context surrounding a problem. The thinker is interested in, and notices, how the parts of the system are influenced by contextual factors and how the parts of a problem interact and overlap internally. No two problems or systems are seen as identical; differences and unique features are noticed and take on importance. Moreover, goals and particular outcomes are not fixed; instead, they tend to emerge from the analysis and no one objective is likely to stand out as eclipsing the importance of other objectives. Consequently, with multiple objectives in mind, no one path or strategy is seen as adequate for dealing with a problem. Instead, multiple paths and strategies to achieve multiple objectives will emerge from this way of thinking, and those strategies along with the goals they serve may shift and change as the problem evolves. As an analytic, multi-focused and dynamic way of thinking, the Integrative style fits particularly well with complex systems that contain many interacting parts that shift and change in unpredictable ways. The Integrative thinking process parallels the essential qualities of complex systems.

By: Dr. Ken Brousseau. Ph.D.

Tips on the Fine Art of Active Listening

In the most basic sense, active listening comprises of a set of techniques for assuring that you understand fully what the a person wishes to communicate when speaking to you, and making clear to the communicator that you understand what he or she has said. However, active listening also serves additional purposes such as:

Increasing the amount of information exchanged in oral communications

Increasing listeners' feelings of involvement with the communicator and with messages being communicated.

• Increasing the communicator's feeling of being appreciated.

• Causing communicators to rethink and clarify their own thoughts.

• Increasing the sense of connection between listeners and communicators.

• Stimulating creativity via the interaction between communicators and listeners.

• Reducing repetition of the same old tired messages from communicators.

Techniques

Listening actively requires effort and overt behavior. We are not listening actively if we simply listen attentively without saying anything while another person speaks -- even if we comprehend fully and precisely what the communicator is saying. To listen actively, we must show clearly to the communicator that we are:

• Listening. We are attentive to what the communicator is saying. We are making an active effort to understand the communicator's message

• Interested. We find it worthwhile to devote our attention to what the communicator has to say. The message has value to us, or at least has stimulated our curiosity.

• Comprehending. Our understanding of the communicator's message agrees with what the communicator intended to say.

Tips on Active Listening

So, as listeners, we have our own work to do as communicators. We must communicate to the communicator that we are listening, interested, and comprehending of what he or she has to say. Of course, this isn't necessarily easy. Communicators often send garbled messages that are very difficult to understand. People sometimes literally say one thing, thinking they have said something else. Communicators may choose words that mean something clear to themselves but have ambiguous meaning to others. Sometimes, what communicators have to say is downright uninteresting. And, even if the message is interesting to you, you may have other things on your mind that make it very difficult for you to concentrate. These are natural obstacles to active listening. However, they can be overcome. Communicators can be helped to communicate more clearly, we can take steps to concentrate on what communicators have to say, and through the active listening process, we can become involved in and interested in most anything that someone may choose to communicate about. Here are some useful active listening techniques.

Non-Verbal Techniques

Eye contact. This is an essential technique for face-to-face communications, and it is very powerful. Through eye contact with a communicator, you show that you are being attentive. Essentially, you are showing the communicator that you are granting him or her your permission and your time for him or her to communicate. Just think about what happens when the eye contact rule is violated! Recall times when you have been trying to get a message through to someone who won't look you in the eye. How did you feel? The possibilities are almost endless and they are all negative. You might have felt slighted. You might have believed that you were boring your listener. Or, perhaps, you believed that you were saying something that was distasteful to your listener. Maybe, he or she was disagreeing with you and was averting his or her eyes to avoid showing the disagreement. You might have felt that your listener was merely distracted by something else. You could have suspected that he or she was resisting your message, or perhaps passively aggressively showing dislike for the message, you, or both. You don't have to be paranoid to think these thoughts or feel these feelings. They are basically just natural human reactions that take place when listeners simply fail to maintain eye contact with communicators. So, keep in mind that your maintaining eye contact, as much as possible, shows the communicator that "the lights are on" and that you are in receiving mode.

Listening posture. There are a variety of ways to show with your posture that you are either open or closed to a communicator's message. Experts on nonverbal behavior sometimes become very prescriptive about body language. However, without going overboard there are a few points to keep in mind. Keeping your arms and legs crossed in front of you tends to indicate that you are closed or defensive. So does leaning away from the communicator or sitting hunched over. Sitting straight and perhaps leaning forward slightly shows that you are attentive, and eager to receive the communicator's message. Keeping your arms uncrossed, perhaps with your hands open (or, at least, fists unclenched) signals further that you are open to receive a communication.

Verbal Techniques

Play back. This is probably the most important and most powerful of all active listening techniques. You simply say to the communicator what you believe you have heard him or her say. This technique is often misunderstood or misconstrued to mean that you should "parrot" back the communicator's words. Parroting, by saying exactly what the communicator said, is not recommended. A better technique is to paraphrase and summarize your communicator's message. This is more difficult than parroting but it is much more effective. To paraphrase effectively, you must listen attentively and think about what the communicator has said in order to sum it up and put it in other words. You can do this by listening for key points that the communicator seems to be emphasizing. Emphasis may take the form of voice tone, facial expression, or simply repetition. Basically, you are looking for main points and theme. Once you feel you are on track, you then begin paraphrasing by using words like the following: "If I understand you correctly, you are saying that . . ." "If I'm following you, your point is that . . ." "I just want to make sure that I fully understand what you are saying. You are suggesting that . . ." "Excuse me for a moment. Let me see if I understand. You're thinking that if . . ." "So, you're thinking that . . ." "If I'm tracking you right, there are two main points you are making. First, . . ." "That's an interesting idea. You're suggesting that . . ." "Pardon me a moment. I want to collect my thoughts. Your point is that . . ." "Would I be right in saying that you are thinking that . . .?" Play back is a great technique for several reasons. First, you may learn that you have not understood what the communicator intended to say. Or, the communicator may realize that the way he or she has said something was confusing or misleading. This will help the communicator clarify his or her intended message. Without the playback, the communicator easily could assume -- erroneously -- that he or she has been understood perfectly. On the other hand, if your paraphrasing shows that you have grasped the communicator's essential message, the effect on the communicator is both powerful and positive. The communicator will feel validated as a communicator. Your paraphrasing shows that the communicator has communicated successfully. It also shows that you have cared enough to be attentive. When you articulate the essence of what the communicator has said using very different words, the positive effect is intensified. Particularly, if you show through your paraphrasing that you grasp a message that the communicator feels is subtle or complex, you will strike the communicator as attentive, interested, and astute! This will greatly strengthen the connection and bond between you and the communicator. Often people are reluctant to play back communications. For one thing, they may feel as though they are being impolite. Play back may require interrupting the communicator. Many of us have been taught never to interrupt. In actuality, these fears are greatly exaggerated. Most people do not mind being interrupted when the person who is making the interruption obviously is listening and making a sincere attempt to understand the communicator's message. In fact, most communicators actually welcome this kind of interruption. In the vast majority of instances, interrupting a communicator for play back lessens tension and friction. In playing back a message, you are showing that you really want to understand and you are merely checking to make sure that you are following the communication. This kind of interruption is hugely different from one in which you cut someone off to make a different point of your own, or to argue with or challenge the person.

Asking Questions. Let's assume that you are comfortable using the play back technique. You may still find it difficult to play back messages because you aren't sure what the communicator is driving at, or you may not understand the logic behind the communicator's message. This is when you need to ask questions. Many of us sit through others' communications wondering just what they are driving at without ever indicating that we aren't following their communications. But, without asking questions, you aren't likely to gain any further understanding. Moreover, you won't be able to use play back effectively, and this will rob you of the most powerful active listening technique. Reluctance to ask questions may stem from several sources. Here again, a person might not want to ask questions because doing so may require interrupting or otherwise appearing impolite. Or, particularly if the communicator is a person of influence or authority, people fear being seen as dumb or, possibly, as challenging the communicator. If this is your concern, consider how much worse it might be to fail to understand the jist of a communication from a person of influence and authority! Of course, it is quite possible to ask questions in such a way as to appear impolite, dumb, or challenging. But, there are many ways to avoid coming across this way. The essential key is sincerity on your part in trying to understand the communicator's message. Most people are so used to being listened to poorly that they are disarmed by real attempts by listeners to grasp their messages. Here are some basic rules of the road to follow in asking questions. Ask questions to clarify or build understanding. For example, you might ask questions such as: "Could you say more about . . .?" "Pardon me, I was interested in what you were saying about X, but I'm not sure that I caught everything you said? Could you say more?" "Could you elaborate a little more on that, please?" "Could you bear with me a moment? I can think of two different interpretations ofwhatI'mhearing. One is... The other is... Could you say a bit more to help me out?" Don't ask questions aimed at exposing weak points or inconsistencies in the communicator's message -- unless you do in fact want to challenge and be seen as doing so. For example, don't ask questions like the following: "But, didn't you just say that . . .?" "You're not saying X are you?" "Wait a minute. I'm not sure I heard that right. What are you saying?" Resist the temptation also to ask leading questions. Such questions show that you are more interested in making your own point than in understanding what your communicator wishes to say. For example, avoid questions such as: "Wouldn't you agree that . . .?" "So, doesn't it follow from what you are saying that . . .?"

Mental Techniques

Suspend Critical Evaluation. One of the things that can get in your way and prevent us from using the techniques we have just described is a tendency to listen for flaws, omissions, faulty thinking, technical errors, or other deficiencies in others' communications. In some cases this tendency to listen critically can interfere with the active listening process to the point that we conclude that the communicator's message is wrong or inadequate before we have fully understood what the communicator has intended to say. Listening to understand and listening to evaluate involve fundamentally different mental processes. When the two overlap too much, both break down. When you are critically evaluating, your capacity to absorb new information is reduced, because you are working on information that you already have taken in. Consequently, if you are listening critically when you should be listening to understand, your comprehension of the communicator's message is likely to be flawed, if only because it is incomplete. And then, in turn, your evaluation will be thrown off because the basis for your evaluation -- full comprehension of the message -- is incomplete or flawed. Clearly, the sequence should be: (1) listen to understand, and then (2) evaluate what you have understood to be the message. In reality, it probably is impossible to completely suspend critical thinking while listening. We humans seem to be inherently evaluative, and the evaluation process for the most part takes place unconsciously without our making a decision to evaluate. However, with some self-awareness and practice, we can prevent critical evaluation from becoming the focus of our listening process. There is another reason to control critical evaluation when listening. If you are listening critically, you are likely also to speak critically. Consequently, instead of using play back to check out your understanding of the communicator's message, and instead of asking questions to build your understanding, you are likely to show disagreement with the communicator's message either verbally or non-verbally. And, this will tend to shift the whole communication process into a very different mode. Instead of an exchange of information, the communication process can move into a defensive mode or into an outright debate. When this happens, listening and understanding will break down. Obviously, what we are saying here does not mean that you have to accept and agree with everything communicators have to say. Our point is that you must first listen to understand and then evaluate.

Summary

Active listening is one of the few behavioral techniques that you can count on to yield benefits almost universally. You will find it very hard to go wrong in most any situation using the techniques described here. Most people are not accomplished active listeners, so if you master active listening techniques you will stand forth very positively from the crowd. You will be better informed, you will have a stronger basis for making judgments about information sent your way by others, and you will build stronger and more positive relationships with those around you. Active listening is like any other skill. You can master it with positive intent, effort, and practice.

By: Dr. Ken Brousseau, Ph.D.

Progressive business leaders are building innovative actions, climates and ultimately cultures that align with “brain-friendly” science. In this article we outline some steps that you can take to support this kind of innovative organization. As the science of human motivations and actions are better understood, organizations are looking to enhance corporate cultures (and underlying actions) aligned to how the brain responds, creates and innovates. We call them “brain-friendly” innovative climates. In this article we cite examples of how leaders are using EASE (Empathize, Associate, Synergize and Engage) to use neuroscience as the basis for an effective innovation effort.

An Observation on Creativity and Innovation

When Steve Jobs was asked about creativity and innovation, he said: “When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they could connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their experiences than other people.” Apple was an early innovator in building innovative climates and cultures that aligned with underlying human drivers, often based on a basic understanding of neuroscience. The organization recognized the need to identify, recruit and engage individuals with a creative perspective, and direct them towards new thinking. To support these individuals, the organization used neuroscience as a basis for creating a set of channels, resources and tools to allow new ideas and their owners to flourish. This remains an important part of the culture of Apple and hundreds of other high performing organizations.

Putting Climate Before Culture

Within this article we will reference both climates and cultures of innovation, and the distinction between them both is important. “Climates” of innovation relate to the actions, channels and tools to support new idea development within an organization. When these have been established a “climate” of innovation could be correctly sighted. However, when these resources and resulting actions become a daily part of the organization, a “culture” of innovation can said to be in place. Culture is less accessible and more complex, so change can be frustratingly slow. Climate, however, remains more nimble, and concrete in how it arouses employee motivation and impacts performance.

Culture is “in part a learned defense mechanism to avoid uncertainty and anxiety.” Edward Schein

Building EASE (Empathize, Associate, Synergize, Engage) Into Your Organization

In order to build both a climate and culture of innovation, we have outlined below a series of steps that companies can take, that consider neural responses from employees. It is important to note that these are not the only actions that a company should take, but rather, are a series of steps that any company should consider:

Empathize: Never forget the role of psychological safety, and empathy in creating a climate where customers’ and employees’ insights are translated into experiments and opportunities to delight the customers via new value added products, and services. Pfizer’s “Dare to Try” initiative is an excellent example where an organization has sought to build empathy (using a Design Thinking-mindset) at scale, across a huge, risk-averse organization. This effort is supported through a series of actions, including employee facilitators trained on a Design Thinking skillset, and utilizing them to engage the rest of the organization in addressing key customer issues. Facilitators are provided with ongoing resources and tools, and are constantly encouraged to apply their skills to drive innovative ideas. Direct business results and ROI are tracked and regularly reported to leadership.

Associate: Making associations between divergent and dissimilar ideas activates the brain (i.e. left frontopolar cortex) that is linked to creativity. It is important that organizations create climates where employees are exposed to unconventional ideas and can find solace in supportive thinkers, as well as access underutilized resources to help push ideas forward. Intuit’s “Innovation Catalyst Network” is part of a broader ecosystem of innovative resources, where a key group of employees are encouraged to network, share thinking and generate results for the organization. This network has been an important driver in the success of Intuit in recent years and is actively supported by the organization’s CEO.

Synergize: The brain’s anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) can pick up on mixed messaging and seemingly opposing agendas and priorities. Flexible thinking and openness are compromised if the brain cannot solve these dilemmas. In response, companies should design climates where transparency is encouraged, in an effort to bring more alignment of actions over time. A recent case study of a digital transformation effort at Volvo Cars offers insights into how competing concerns were managed when the organization went through a radical shift in how they implemented innovative actions.

Engage. Increasingly Innovation Program and HR leaders are understanding the neural science of intrinsic motivators and personality types. With these efforts they are recognizing the different skills needed to create, select, build and release innovative ideas. Taken a step further, organizations are defining different innovation roles / personality types, assessing innovators against a set of criteria, and assigning individuals to work on ideas, depending on the needs at a specific point of the life cycle. A materials manufacturing company recently assessed their 250 most innovative employees to determine their “innovation personality” types. This then helped determine which ideas the individuals would be allocated to develop, based on the needs of that idea and where it sat in the development lifecycle. Based on the success of this effort, and their desire to support a broader culture of innovation, they are now considering how to use innovation personality assessment as part of their hiring process. Remember, these are just some samples of how progressive leaders are considering how neuroscience can impact the innovative capacity of an organization. Feel free to suggest actions that you have seen successfully implemented within the comment section below. Feel free to reach out to the authors to receive a simple list of innovative actions that align with neuroscience to drive a climate and culture of innovation. This simple, practical list can be helpful for forward thinking innovation leaders.

By Armin Pajand and Anthony Ferrier