Friday 29 April 2011

Can we achieve perfection (or should we just settle for excellence)?

On first encounter it sounds like one of those ‘eight pint debates’ that mates have down the pub -  ‘What’s the fastest a human could ever run?’ , ‘Could a human lift a truck above his/her head?’, ‘Who would win a race in a straight flat 50 swim, Michael Phelps or Mark Spitz?’.    However, when you really start to analyse these questions, some interesting challenges immediately become apparent.
                                                                     
I’ve just been reading ‘Perfection Point’ by John Brenkus (2011, MacMillan), in which the author attempts to answer such questions. It’s a fascinating read. Covering a number of different sports, including sprinting, swimming and weight –lifting, he aims to establish the absolute perfect performance by a human-being, one that can never be surpassed because to do so would go beyond the limits of human potential.  His search becomes a difficult one surprisingly quickly.

Here are a few of the problems associated with such an endeavour:

1.        Social  – over what distance do you decide to run your race?  Who decides?  Why is it that people can perform better in competition with others than when alone?  If this is the case, can a record truly be held by an individual or should it be jointly held by all participants?  Think about the use of pace-makers in distance running, for example.  Even more sophisticated examples are given by Brenkus.  For example, the setting of a minimum reaction time for a sprinter to react to the gun is an arbitrary number set by the sport’s governing body – who is to say that someone cannot learn to react faster than this standard? (Or put it another way, is an athlete potentially being adversely affected by the rules?)
2.       Environmental – there is an advantage to being placed in the middle lanes of a sprint or a swim.  Some of this is tactical advantage, some of it is to do with the forces of nature.  For example, water temperature and the ability of a pool to dissipate wave energy have an effect on speed.  What about wind resistance, track surface etc?
3.       Technological – sports equipment is constantly being refined, improved and updated.  At what point do advances in equipment overshadow any performance improvements in the athlete?  Consider how technical advances in golf clubs, for example, have made drives from the tee much longer.  Swimming is an example where ‘speed suits’ have been banned as providing an unfair advantage.  In essence, the assumption about sport is that everyone starts from a level playing field.  Technological advances require research and that means money.  If two Olympic swimmers stand next to each other on the starting blocks but one has the benefit of millions of pounds of research behind him, while the other has got there on his own merits, are they the same?  Is it fair?  (And is it inevitable that inequalities like this will always be present?).  Brenkus has a really interesting chapter on the use of performance-enhancing substances.  Although he comes out firmly against the use of drug-taking, he highlights the ambiguities and inconsistencies involved in deciding what can be considered ‘legal’.  Caffeine? (Doesn’t occur naturally in the body, but easily available by drinking coffee), ‘Testosterone? (Naturally occurring, levels vary between athletes, but can also be injected). 
4.       Finally there is the psychological – firstly top athletes need saving from themselves.  The will to win is so strong that they will do anything including potentially self-damaging activities in the pursuit of coming out top dog.  Again Brenkus highlights inconsistencies in what we (as the public) find allowable.  Why is it OK to watch two boxers beat the living daylights out of each other, but steroid use is not?  What about genetic enhancement?   He also makes a very interesting point about the power of psychology.  If all the science points to an absolute minimum time for say, a 100M sprint, one that cannot be surpassed because of the physical limitations of the human frame, if that time is near to a ‘round point’, then it still may be beaten.  Consider the 4 minute mile for example.  The sheer compelling nature of this ‘round point’ as a target inspired athletes to try to beat it, despite it being described as impossible.  And of course, once one person had done it, others quickly followed.  The natural conclusion of this type of thinking is that perfection can never be achieved, simply because of the power of an individual to think ‘I can beat that’.

Although this is a book on sports, I think it has relevance for those of us who work in more mainstream areas.  If you are managing people, you are probably also being held accountable for their performance.  If you apply the above influences (social, environmental, technological and psychological) to your followers, how much of what they achieve can be attributed to their individual endeavours?  Are there things that you could do that might help them perform better?  Even more bluntly, are there things you are doing that might actually be stopping them from performing to the best of their ability?  Sometimes just getting out of the way is the finest piece of leadership we can display!

It is these types of challenges which have led to appraisals being a combination of evaluation of results achieved and behaviours used to achieve those results, the latter being more in the control of the individual.  (For more on this approach, see our earlier blog post on goal setting).  Perfection, therefore, may be an impossible dream, and the pursuit of it, can paradoxically lead to inferior results, by placing too much pressure on the person or by creating inflexibility.  ‘Settling for excellence’ is a better mantra – it retains the compelling nature of aiming for the best possible, while retaining room for creativity and flexibility.



Thursday 28 April 2011

Can you teach business nous?

BBC Radio 4 is running a series of discussions about Women in Business with leading business entrepeneurs commenting on various topics.  Having seen Michelle Mone of MJM International (lingerie business) speak at Lancaster University it was no surprise that in this interview she attributes success to having determination, passion, a fire in your belly and the ability to take risks.  Having left school at 15 due to family pressures and therefore not completing her education I see a familiar pattern with successful business people I've come into contact with.

Michelle's co-interviewee Carol Savage of My Dish (an online internet business) attributes her business nous to something that wasn't planned and she fell into while on maternity leave.  Business she says is common sense and learning by experience.  Carol did undertake an MBA in Business once in business and again this is something which we tend to find, entrepeneurs underpinning their personal experience later in life in order to challenge and confirm they way they have become successful.

One thing both agree on is to employ people that are better than yourself for areas that are not within your own expertise, we certainly agree with this advice and aim to create an environment where our team want to work with us.  For the whole debate listen here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zt4gv#p00g3ldm

Wednesday 27 April 2011

Leadership and forgiveness - Part One

Forgiveness might be a strange topic to be talking about in the context of leadership (and perhaps especially so in the private sector).  However, we argue that this is a crucial quality required of leaders today.  Let's put this into a practical perspective, that of problem solving.  There is lots of interesting research around this topic and the processes involved in solving problems at work (Check out the work of Professor Keith Grint and also David Snowden).  It's not the aim of this blog to go into the detail here, but essentially there is a type of problem classed as 'complex'.  In a complex problem (as opposed to a 'simple problem' which can be solved with reference to previously tried and tested procedures), there is often no obvious link between cause and effect.  There may be several factors impacting on the situation, it feels novel (like being on 'new territory') and there is little past experience to which to refer for guidance.  Complex problems typically do not have 'one right answer', the operators and restrictors can also be only vaguely defined.  When facing problems like this, some degree of experimentation is required.  This may include some 'thinking out loud' with others (trusted friends and colleagues who know how to accept a whacky idea without judging the person).  Experimentation also implies an acceptance of failure and this is where forgiveness comes in. 

What the leader does in those moments, where the actual outcome is not as desired, is crucial.  To chastise the person for trying something will make them (and everyone else) reluctant to put their head above the parapet again in the future.  An organisation that fails to innovate, to try out new things will be an organisation that 'always gets what it always got'.  Ultimately this leads to extinction.  Of course, knowing about forgiveness and actually forgiving are two very different things.   As a leader, it is one thing to know that it is 'good' to encourage experimentation in your followers, but it is quite another to actually practise it, when the outcome is 'failure' and the costs in terms of time, money and relationships can be high.

Unsurprisingly, much of the information on forgiveness comes from religion but it is neither the sole commentator, nor do all religions take the same view.  One writer (Tilby, 1985) describes forgiveness as a human virture which is  'more or less unique to Christianity'.  Forgiveness appears to transcend the idea of 'reciprocity', where we will stick with a relationship if there are rewards coming the other way.  This raises the question, is it ever possible to forgive unconditionally?  For the leader, who may be affected by the actions of others and who has responsibility for protecting shareholders' interests, this can be particularly difficult.  Tilby adds that forgiveness 'involves the end of our normal expectations' and that this can be a painful experience.  It means accepting that we feel we have be wronged and even betrayed yet not letting it dictate subsequent behaviour.  This acceptance also extends to a valuing of the self, and in doing so ceasing criticism and self-punishment.  Much is written of the importance of the Emotionally Intelligent leader (see the work of Daniel Goleman for an introduction to this wide and varied topic).  Again, a question, can a leader who is not sufficiently self-aware and comfortable with who they are, truly forgive?  Forgiving the self is on the pathway to forgiving others.

This is meant to be an introduction to the topic of forgiveness.  I aim to put up more in the near future, but for now the aim is to stimulate discussion and add to the debate.  Your comments are welcome and if you have any suggested resources in addition to the ones below, please make your own contributions.




Further reading:
1. Marie by Gordon Wilson - an inspirational read by a father who lost his daughter in a terrorist bombing.
2. If you need to apologise, have a look at our 7 April post for some hints and tips.
3. A Course in Miracles - a sometimes difficult read but the exercises are powerful.  It takes a different view on forgiveness, following the idea that if you can see things as they really are, then what is there to forgive?
4. http://www.forgivenessweb.com/ - lots of inspirational stories and guidance on the act of forgiving.
5.  Tilby A (1985) Won't you join the dance?
6.  Rowe D (1994)  Breaking the bonds

Thursday 7 April 2011

Need to say ‘Sorry’? Then consider your victim

Recent research has shown that apologising might be a more sophisticated process than just blurting out the word, ‘Sorry!’, however well-intentioned that may be.  Ryan Fehr and Michele Gelfand of the University of Maryland have identified three forms of apology; ‘compensation’, ‘empathy’ and ‘acknowledgement of violated rules’. 

·         ‘Compensation’ is attempting to make good for the misdemeanour (Eg ‘Im sorry I broke your ornament, I’ll pay to have it replaced’). 
·         ‘Empathy’ is more to do with aligning yourself with how the other person is feeling (Eg ‘I’m sorry we went to the party without you, you must feel rejected right now’). 
·         ‘Acknowledgement of violated rules/norms’ makes explicit the nature of the transgression (Eg ‘I’m sorry I interrupted you just then as we had agreed that everyone should have their say in this meeting’).

What is interesting is that the researchers found that the effect of the apology made had more to do with how the ‘victim’ sees themselves rather than the size of the transgression.  People who were more individualistic in nature preferred an apology based on compensation, whereas people who define themselves in terms of their relations to others preferred a more empathetic apology.  Acknowlegement of violation of rules/norms was most effective with people who see themselves as part of a larger group or a collective.  (It would be interesting to see if there are cultural differences, for example, between individualistic and collectivist cultures).

The message seems to be, then, that if you have to say ‘Sorry’ you need to consider the type of apology that the other person is looking for and then structure your response accordingly.  And if you don’t know or you have to make an apology to more than one person? (Think about BP for a moment!)  Then the suggestion is that you should make a carefully constructed, multi-faceted apology so that you cover all the possible preferences of those you have aggrieved.

Source:

A digest of the research can be found in ‘The Psychologist’, Oct 2010, Vol 33. No10. The research is published in the September issue of ‘Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes’.  You can download it from:

http://www.ryanfehr.com/research.html






Monday 4 April 2011

Goals and goal setting

I have an interest in sports psychology.  More accurately, I have a fascination in what makes people excellent at what they do, and sports is a good field in which to explore this topic.  There is also a strong and well-established link between sports and business, with sporting achievement often being used as a metaphor with which to inspire employees to greater heights of performance. 

One very inspirational read is 'Personal Best' by the multi-medal winning Paralympic swimmer, Marc Woods.  (He is also a very entertaining conference speaker http://marcwoods.com/  ).  I read the book a few years ago and it is his finishing notes that have stayed in my mind.  He concludes by asking us to consider at the time when we look back on our lives will we ask ourselves 'I wish I had... ' or 'I could have, but....'.  He wants us to live our lives without regrets, but what I find really interesting is the distinction he makes between people who say either the first or second of the two 'regret' statements.  The 'I wish... ' group he finds sad, but can empathise.  But for the second, 'I could have, but..' group he is less forgiving.   His response to people who tell him that they could have been a great athlete but they discovered beer/women/men (you fill in the reason!) is short and to the point.  Quite simply he says, 'Look - if you could have been, you would have been.  It's as simple as that.'

His point is clear.  The world of sports is a hard place in which to achieve.  It is brutal and there are many other people out there who are desperate to get what you want too.  Gold medals don't come easily.  Talent is not enough; it takes hard work and perseverance.  Woods also stresses the need to set goals, to keep them constantly in mind and to work towards them every day.

Research from the world of sport suggests that three types of goals are important when working towards long-term performance achievement.  Firstly there needs to be an outcome goal. This is the long-term goal that is the desired end-result of all that hard work.  For example it might be 'To win a gold medal at the Olympics in 2012'.  This should be positive, have a 'towards focus' and be compelling in nature.  However, while it is good for maintaining motivation and direction, it has its weaknesses too.  It is not entirely within the athlete's control; other people want that medal too!  An over-focus on outcomes can also lead to the athlete experiencing unhelpful levels of stress and rigidity in training.

So, a more effective strategy is to supplement the outcome goal with performance and process goals.  An example of a performance goal might be to achieve a specific time during training.  A process goal is more directed towards the athlete focusing on key elements/skills which ultimately lead to good performance.  Using performance and process goals allow the athlete to keep attention on the things that matter in the short term and to work on things that are entirely within his/her control.  They also allow greater flexibility during the training phase to allow for temporary setbacks.

But with goals comes sacrifice, and this leads us back to Marc Woods' original claim,  'If you could have, you would have'.  The existential view of goal setting is that when you make a choice, by definition you begin to exclude other options.  So part of goal setting is knowing what you are prepared to give up in order to achieve your goal.  (This is why we talk about SMART goals and Well Formed Outcomes).

Interestingly, much of the early work on goal-setting came from the world of business and then was applied to sports.  (Usually the information moves in the other direction).  The role of the leader can be to provide followers with an inspiring and compelling vision, but that still needs to be translated into meaningful and manageable goals, which can be acted on day-to-day, by the people responsible for turning that dream into reality.  This takes great skills of communication, a personal and sincere commitment to the organisational goal and the willingness to constantly be present and accessible to your followers.

Miles

References

Williams J.,M. (2010)  Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance.  McGraw-Hill:  New York

Woods M (2006)  Personal Best.  Capstone: Chichester


Friday 1 April 2011

Facilitation and Conflict Management - Tony Whalley of Achieve Dynamics

I spent yesterday attending a CIPD (Lancahsire) event on Facilitation and Conflict Management.  It was delivered by Tony Whalley of Achieve Dynamics Ltd (You can find him on Linked In).  Tony's approach to facilitation utilises the principles and techniques found in Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP), particularly the underpinning presuppositions. (Useful beliefs to hold when working with others.  If you are not familiar with them a good summary can be found at  http://www.changingstates.co.uk/nlp_presup.html). NLP is not everyone's cup of tea, but it does hold some useful ideas for working with people.  The good thing is as a facilitator you never need to mention NLP, you just have to help people work towards an outcome.  As long as they are making progress, they won't be interested in how you are actually working.

I'm not going to outline Tony's materials and exercises - it's his material after all, but he managed to cover a lot of ground in a short space of time.  Instead I want to pose a few questions and thoughts as a result of attending the day.

One of the fascinating things about working as a facilitator is knowing when you are working in 'Process' and when you have joined the group in working on 'Task/Content'.  An extension of this is noticing when you have become attached to an aspect of the group's work.  For example, Tony asked us to think about what our reaction would be if we felt we had facilitated a good session, yet the group failed to deliver on its outcome.  To ignore the result might be to deny your own shortcomings as a facilitator, yet to take responsibility implies that you somehow got involved in the task.   Many of these things are much easier to say than to do, and my own experience of facilitating  is that as a facilitator you are continuously peeling back successive layers of awareness.  Just when you think you've got to a point where you believe you are working in an objective, detached and process-oriented way, something happens which hooks you right back and reveals something of your own personal 'hot buttons'.

The importance of developing a heightened sense of awareness was illustrated in the second main them that Tony got us to experience.  This was to demonstrate just how much the thinking and unconscious processes of the facilitator can influence the output from the group.  Limiting expectations, projecting unhelpful thoughts and feelings on to the group etc can all be detrimental to the final outcome.

We explored a couple of techniques, particularly the NLP technique of 'chunking up/down' as a means of working towards agreement and cooperation.  One of Tony's skills is he can make subtle interpretations of classic NLP work, which make it more relevant to the context of the day.  The general rule on chunking is that you should 'chunk up for agreement'.  (Basically this means if you get two people who are in conflict to think about the situation at a higher level of abstraction they are more likely to find areas of commonality).  Tony's take on this is 'To get people to consider more options, start from more agreement' and 'At higher levels of purpose people are more open to being influenced'.  I like this take on the idea of chunking because it leaves the recipient with more autonomy.  Chunking is no longer a technique to be used 'on' people but one which invites them to consider more choice.

One final thought that Tony left us with was ' Just because a group is uncomfortable with the process doesn't mean to say that they will be uncomfortable with the outcome'.   A good summary for the day - good facilitation is about helping the group to meet their outcome - that's the prime objective, but in the process of doing so the facilitator is constantly learning about him/herself and there may be moments where he/she needs to be courageous.
Miles 1/4/11