Blogs

Can you teach an old dog new tricks?

Lazy dog

Of course you can, but the old dog has to want to learn them!

But then isn’t personality set? Well roughly yes, and from a pretty early age; personality is the result of the interaction between genetic conditions and environmental conditions and can be represented in this way: P = (GxE). This means that from an early age our personalities are set and basically don’t change. Sure I can provide lots of clinical data to back up this assertion but hey just go to a school reunion! Sure they may be balder or fatter but they are just the same, aren’t they?

Behaviour on the other hand is a result of the interaction between personality and situation and can be represented in this way: B = (PxS). Therefore change the situation and we are all capable of modifying our behaviour, to a greater or lesser extent. And this makes it difficult to hide behind the genetics argument because if we choose we can change our behaviour. This also means there are no such things as personality clashes, or any reason why we can’t choose a different path.

In his book ‘Life at the bottom’ Theodore Dalrymple confronts a drugs user who claims: “It’s not my fault I am easily led.” Theodore replies: “Then how come you haven’t been easily led to conjugating Latin verbs, or to study higher Maths?” You see we like the determinism argument (ie that every event is the inevitable consequence of previous conditions) when it suits us.

I think the deeper issue is to find a reason why someone would want to change; and that is far more difficult. I have no problem with the person who says: ‘I’m happy how I am, I understand the negative consequences of not changing and I accept them.’ But I rarely hear that. What I hear are the rationalising arguments: ‘it’s not my fault,’ ‘that’s just how I am made,’ ‘I can’t change now, it’s too late,’ ‘my personality is set!’

So how do you get someone to change? Back to our old dogs, they need to want to change. As Confucius said ‘change is a door that can only be opened from the inside,’ (mind you he also said ‘experience is a comb given to a bald man.’) So it is usually up to us to find the reasons - and there are so many (as many as there are people). A few examples:

‘Altruism,’ (ie it is the right thing to do)
‘Improve your stock,’ (ie if you improve it will be better for your people and you’ll be better thought of as a leader within the organization)
‘These are career-limiting behaviours’ (ie we’ll sack you if you don’t improve)
‘Odd one out’ (ie everyone else in the team is showing progression and you’re not)
‘Look at him’ (ie point to the tangible benefits in someone else)
‘Cementing’ (ie keep on doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep on getting what you’re getting, you’ll become known for the behaviours and so will keep getting the same old projects/tasks)
‘It will make life easier’ (appeal to laziness)

Often the most difficult issue is convincing folks development isn’t about changing what is intrinsically you, it isn’t about taking things away but adding to your armoury, and it will give you a greater array of choices, options and dimensions. The Latin root of the word ‘education’ is ‘e-ducato,’ which means ‘leading out.’ So it is not about trying to be like someone or something else (not possible nor desirable) or cramming your head full of the latest consultant’s nonsense; it is about bringing out the best in you, ie becoming a better version of you.
 

Does attitude determine behaviour, or does behaviour determine attitude - or both?

Which Came First, The Chicken or The Egg?

General George Patton was asked, in 1944 how he ‘wins hearts and minds.’ His answer is legendary and witty, but also incredibly profound. Patton said: ‘Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.’ Now sure this may sound a little crude and crass but what he is saying is that behaviour will determine attitude, and that is a wise and insightful viewpoint.

We were asked by the world’s largest manufacturer of architectural ironmongery to create a customer-centric culture. Previously they’d tried all the ‘attitudinal changing,’ trite methods of pictures of happy customers, and statements like ‘customers pay our wages,’ and ‘awe-inspiring’ posters of tired-inspired people who had just climbed a mountain for the first time, covered in snow and glory. So no problem with square inches of inspiration on walls but ‘winning the hearts and minds,’ especially of the senior team, was a far more difficult task.

The senior team knew all the arguments: happy customers mean repeat business, happy customers act as advocates by telling other people how good your company is and building a relationship means that doing business is less transactional and price-sensitive; indeed they could make those convincing arguments to others. But the difference was, they couldn’t actually ‘feel’ it because they had no direct experience.

Attitudes have three main components: cognitive, (which is about our beliefs) affective, (which is about our feelings) and behavioural (how we act towards the attitude object). Getting attitude to change behaviour is really difficult because we intellectualise, post-rationalise, make excuses - anything rather than accept the logic. However by effecting changes in behaviour we often find that attitude follows suit. So why is that? We call it ‘cognitive dissonance,’ which argues that people prefer their beliefs and feelings to be consistent with each other and with their behaviour so when inconsistencies occur people become uncomfortable and have to adapt; but how do they adapt? Think about someone whose cognition is ‘I smoke’, who is bombarded with messages ‘smoking kills.’ The obvious corollary to this is that they give up smoking; but they don’t do they? They either discount the evidence or adopt the irrational belief that smoking won’t harm them personally or promise themselves that they will give up on Monday - or the end of the month, or after the summer holidays; anything rather than give up.

So back to our architectural ironmongery organisation; what did we do? Well what we did was initiate a policy, (not a policy, oh yeah a ‘policy.’) Every single senior manager, including all board members, had to personally (personally mind) handle four customer complaints a month, including personal follow-up with the customer. Thus the CEO had to show up at a DIY store in Glasgow and get a ‘severe telling off,’ (as they say in Glasgow) from the store owner; that is truly the sharp end of ‘customer experience.’ And do you know, all of a sudden, customer service really did become important to the organisation and the senior team suddenly became its strongest advocates. Why? Because, like Patton said (perhaps a little more coarsely), having had a direct experience, their behaviour determined their attitude.

Why 'hard-nosed negotiation' does not work

Poker cardsFor all the books and supposed ‘styles’ of negotiating I think the advice from ‘Getting to Yes,’ by Fisher and Ury still holds true: ‘don’t bargain over position, bargain only over issues.’ By bargaining over position you can cement yourself into a bad place and it also clearly pinpoints your true position to the other person; here is a perfect example.

By 1963 the Beatles were the biggest band on the planet, outselling everyone else, selling out concert halls worldwide and becoming a merchandising phenomenon. Their manager, Brian Epstein was over the moon when United Artists decided they wanted to make a ‘Beatles’ movie and asked him to meet with them to discuss the contract. Epstein was triumphant, and so walked in to the meeting with a swagger and banged the table announcing ‘my boys won’t accept less than 7.5%, take it or leave it.’

Of course in those days 7.5% was a large amount but by cementing himself into the position Epstein did not realise that United Artists were looking at 25% as a starting point for the negotiations. As Denis O’Dell said in his book, ’At the Apple’s Core,’ “Brian, in a meeting with the producer of A Hard Day's Night, stated that he wouldn't accept less than 7.5% of the income from the movie. United Artists had the figure of 25% as a starting point for the deal negotiations.”

And so what is the moral of this tale? Wait, listen, ask questions and never, ever bargain over position, only over issues. Perhaps Lady Ga-Ga would have done a better job:

“Can't read my,
Can't read my,
No he can't read my poker face”

Did psychology begin with Wundt, James, Freud and Jung?

1879 is often cited as ‘the birthday of psychology’ the year when Wilhelm Wundt created the very first psychological research laboratory at Leipzig University and this has led to Wundt being hailed as ‘the father of psychology.’ Yet of course this is like saying that before 5 July 1687, when Newton ‘discovered’ gravity, that we were all floating around in space; we need to differentiate between formalised academic study and the realities of what has been going in peoples’ lives, and minds, for centuries.

William WordsworthI was re-reading Wordsworth recently and if we drill deep into what he was really saying we can see that he ‘knew’ free association long before the term had been coined and he drew on past strengths to shore him up during times of present angst.

“And think ye not with radiance more sublime
For these remembrances, and for the power
They had left behind? So feeling comes in aid
Of feeling, and diversity of strength
Attends us, if but once we have been strong”

William Wordsworth, ‘The Prelude, Book Twelfth,’ 1799

These beauteous forms,
Through a long absence, have not been to me
As is a landscape to a blind man's eye:
But oft, in lonely rooms, and 'mid the din
Of towns and cities, I have owed to them
In hours of weariness, sensations sweet,

Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart;
And passing even into my purer mind,
With tranquil restoration”

William Wordsworth, ‘Above Tintern Abbey,’ 1789

“While here I stand, not only with the sense
Of present pleasure, but with pleasing thoughts
That in this moment there is life and food
For future years”

William Wordsworth, ‘Above Tintern Abbey,’ 1789

The brain states are the sub-conscious, (sometimes called the unconscious), and the conscious mind. Every event from birth, and even pre-birth, gets stored in the sub-conscious, without us realising it. The process through which events ‘leak’ out, (or are brought out), from the sub-conscious to the conscious, waking mind is called ‘free association.’ In the 1960s Penfield conducted some experiments around free association and found that all events were recorded and stored. He found that:

• Memory is evoked in a single recollection in detail, rather than generalisations.
• The feelings which were associated with the event are also recorded, therefore we ‘relive’ rather than ‘recall.’
• Memory continues intact - even after the mind’s ability to recall it has disappeared.
• The brain ‘tape-records’ every experience from birth (possibly even before birth) and all this is recorded in the temporal cortex section of the brain.
• The key therefore is that we not only remember the event and remember the feeling, but can feel the same way now.

So we can see that Wordsworth ‘used’ his memories, his experiences of the past, to help him through the present. He would go to places where he had wandered as a young man and he not only remembered, he not only remembered how he felt but he could feel the same way again; and for Wordsworth this was how he drew on his previous strengths to ensure he remained strong during ...”hours of weariness.” Wordsworth was by all accounts a solitary figure and his writing gives us a wonderful insight into how he coped with ‘modern life.’ Predating ‘Psychology’ by almost a century Wordsworth shows us that there is a huge difference between ‘Psychology’ and ‘psychology,’ ie between formalised academic study and the realities of what is going on in peoples’ lives.
 

AV Magazine for the Broadcast Industry

AV Magazine

Bill was interviewed about the future of recruitment in the Dubai-based Broadcast magazine AV. The link is at: http://tinyurl.com/yghyuek

21st Century Leadership: An Evolutionary Profile

BlogTalkRadio logo

This is a pared down version of Bill on US Radio which runs at about 25 minutes and covers all the main leadership topics.

Download the MP3 version.

Bill on live radio

Bill has been asked to do a two and a half  hour, live radio phone-in on 'Leadership in the 21st century." The details are at: http://tinyurl.com/nbowyb

BlogTalkRadio logo

I guess one of the problems is that people will be looking for 'the answer,' the silver bullet, the one thing that will make them great leaders and, unfortunately, that misses the point; it is about lots of little things. There are no perfect leaders, (as there are no perfect friends, or husbands, or wives I guess), and so it is about being the best leader that YOU can, with all your foibles and specific traits. The Latin root of the word 'education,' is 'e-ducato,' which means 'leading out.' So rather than try to cram our heads with all the latest theories, or attempt to be like that leader over there, (not possible or even desirable) it's better to bring out the best in us as individuals. Hamel says it's all about innovation, Bossidy says it's all about execution, Collins says it's all about humility; who's right? Well none of them and all of them! I tried to be an innovative, servile, execution focused leader and it's like trying to be short and tall.

I will be interested to see what the questions are from the listeners but I hope they aren't looking for 'the one thing,' as they may be over simplifying things. Maybe see you on there?

Learning to listen

StageThere is nothing soft or woolly about coaching, listening or giving feedback. Another perspective might simply be that they are guidelines for listening to, understanding and getting the information you want from the people you lead. Many managers find it useful to have some support in this area, particularly those who have progressed from a more technical environment and then find themselves managing people. The main difference between machinery and people is predictability. People are hard to understand, (they rarely conform to laws of physics), and management should be all about understanding your people and getting the best from them. Indeed management is after all a people game - and a contact sport!

You get what you reward!

Wanted posterYou remember the old story about a fisherman walking along the river bank and he comes across a snake with a frog? He feels sorry for the frog as it’s about to be eaten and so he moves it out of the way. Then he feels sorry for the hungry snake and so he takes out his hip-flask and gives it a shot of whisky.

Next day he’s walking by the river and the snake is waiting for him - with two frogs!

And so what is the moral of this tale? Easy - you get what you reward! And it’s the same in organisations - you get what you reward. How you measure the performance of your people will determine how they behave and you will get what you reward. So there’s little point in rewarding adherence to rules and blind obedience - because that’s exactly what you will get. But you can’t reward adherence to rules and blind obedience and expect initiative and creativity. Incidentally if you do reward creativity and initiative then you may also get the odd spectacular failure!

So what does your organisation reward? And what do you reward?

Have we have created a 'stress industry?'

Tags: Stress

Stress ballStress has become ‘the next big thing.’ If we type the word ‘stress’ into the Google search engine there are 18,000,000 pages, each with 178,000,000 articles and websites offering advice, stress tests, statistics and potentially ‘the answer.’ There are stress counsellors, self-help books, DVDs, etc - it is almost as though ‘stress’ has become an industry in itself.

Stress is now a self-diagnosing condition

Stress has also become a self-diagnosing condition where we find individuals visiting their GPs and saying ‘I have stress,’ (rather than ‘these are my symptoms, what do you think it might be doctor?’) We have created a stress culture and so most of us can recite the usual symptoms and suddenly everyone is a stress expert.

Syndicate content