Is our thinking "emotional intelligent"?

Wednesday December 14, 2011 I read this interesting quote the other day: "There is a form of folly that is the absence of everything except our rationality." I never really subscribed to the clear-cut distinction between rational and emotional (and research shows us that emotions are actually located in specific and trackable portions of the brain). I do agree that ultimately being "only rational" is a sure way to become dysfunctional. In fact I often feel that our ability to think strategically and critically needs to assess not only our cognitive abilities, but also our feelings or emotional states. Or does it? To disagree or not to disagree? Some situations reveal the complex interplay of our cognitive and emotional abilities and resist simple labels: think about a time when you were in doubt about whether or not to disagree with your direct supervisor on an important decision. ·         Was your thinking rooted in emotions? ·         Was your thinking a simple rational calculation based in data?  ·         What did influence your decision to step in or not into a potentially dangerous situation? ·         What role did emotional evaluation played in that choice? I can imagine the negative consequences that might come my way if I disagree with my boss. Maybe the fear of reprimand plays an important role in my thinking about this and will influence it. Feeling fear is not a nice place to be: how does one deal  productively with such a strong emotional response? I think we find the answer in "emotionally intelligent" critical thinking. I believe that is ultimately our ability to reflect about the crucial link between intelligence and emotions what will allow me to think well in that situation, and maybe muster the courage to take the risk. Thinking well as interplay of intelligence and emotions Emotions are not more or less important than thoughts; the fact is that if we want to change a feeling, we need to understand it. To do so it might be helpful to identify the thinking that ultimately leads to the feeling. So in a situation like the one described we might want to ask ourselves: • What purpose does my decision to disagree serve in this situation? • What purpose does my decision to agree serve in this situation? • What feelings are surfacing for me as I think about this? • What is the risk that I believe I am dealing with here? • What has been the outcome of similar behaviors in this same context? • What is the worst that can happen if I decide to take this risk? • What am I revealing about myself with my decision to take or not take this risk? • Regardless, how can I claim my "part of the mess" in this situation? • What would taking responsibility look like in this situation? Where would that lead? If you think that you can't prevent a bad decision in a meeting with your boss, then you will feel satisfied and decide not to take any risk. Again your assessment of the situation – based on your thinking – will allow you to feel content and satisfied (not taking any risk) or motivated and driven towards a different outcome enough to put yourself on the line (taking the risk). Thinking well as power Notice how your "emotional intelligent" thinking about your organization/team/department influences the outcome and –ultimately – gives you or not the power to make a difference in the situation. In situation A when you think that they "don't get it" and that no matter what is decided, it will make no difference: your behavior will make that thought come true and you will feel satisfied with your decision not to speak up. This is no matter how wrong the final outcome might turn out to be. In situation B when you think exactly the same but feel that that particular decision is very important to you, and that your organization is really not that horrible and that its mission might be worth risking something, then your choice will be different. I wish you a courageous and creative new year! Adriano Pianesi | ParticipAction Consulting, Inc.

 

Are we "simpatici" in our work with groups?

Wednesday November 16, 2011 There is a word in Italian and other romance languages that can't be translated into English: Simpatico. The dictionary defines the word as [sim-'pä-ti-'kō] adj Informal 1. pleasant or congenial 2. of similar mind or temperament; compatible. I have also heard it translated as likeable or nice. Yet those translations do not capture an element at the root of the word "simpatia," which poorly translates into English as sympathy. I catch myself using this word a lot to name the emotional and intuitive "sense" that takes place "below the neck" when people work with groups. We know what it is, and yet we can't define it. I can say that "simpatia" exists only in the interaction between Individuals; it is not a personality trait, although an individual may be particularly adept at developing rapport in certain situations. And I find that people that are "simpatici" are more creative together and more likely to build positive results. So, what does it mean to be "simpatico" or its opposite "antipatico"? What does "simpatia" mean for our work with groups? back to top Are we builders of a "community of feelings"? The meaning of "simpatia" has nothing to do with compassion or pity. Instead, the word comes from sympatheia;  sympathes in Greek meaning, "having a fellow feeling, affected by like feelings." Both words come from syn- "together"+ pathos "feeling," literally feeling with. On the other hand, when you do not like someone and perhaps can't explain why, you might say that that person is "antipatica". Literally this mean that you can't feel with that person, you can't connect at an emotional level. I like to say that "simpatia" highlights the ability to build rapport, to build a "community of feeling" animated by "affinity between certain things." Rapport is the closest concept I have found though this too is not a perfect fit.   Are we antipatici with our groups? Can we connect with others at an emotional level? Can we create with our groups a "community of feeling"? How? Are there people whom you like a lot but are unable to say why? Wouldn't it be great to understand and emulate what it is about those people that makes them "simpatici" to us? back to top A recipe for "simpatia"? While everybody is looking to make the most of this enlivening dynamic—whether they are salespeople, teachers, or consultants—we also know that it can't be faked. In fact, individuals experience "simpatia" as the result of a combination of qualities embodied by each individual during an interaction, often at an unconscious level. Research shows that there are three elements present when rapport exists: Mutual attentiveness:  Paying attention to each other—not focusing on yourself—is one key to building rapport, along with experiencing the dynamic as being reciprocal. Questions to ponder: ·         In what ways can we pay attention to each person in the group? ·         How do we gain people's attention in a non-manipulative way? ·         How do we actively pursue reciprocal attention in our groups? Shared positive feeling:  Another key is to hold a joint focus on each other. This goes beyond paying attention to really "feeling with," and establishing an affinity—a common ground. Questions to ponder: ·         Are we really listening to each other? ·         What happens when we tune in to each others' feelings in a group? ·         In what ways we can find elements of common ground with total strangers? Coordination or Synchrony: Exchanges that are spontaneous—not guarded, but free-flowing—are most likely to result in rapport. Questions to ponder: ·         What if we drop our guard in our exchanges with groups? ·         What does it mean to be authentically present with a group for you? I wish you fun and fulfillment as you explore "simpatia"! Adriano Pianesi | ParticipAction Consulting, Inc. | Increasing Your Returns on Collaboration and Learning

Why is it so hard to have a "learning conversation" at work?

Thursday October 20, 2011 People often ask why it seems so hard for them to replicate at work the same quality conversations they have in my workshops, the kind of conversations that allow people to learn something with and from each other. Indeed, I have found that many organizations struggle with this: How to increase the "learning quotient" of a conversation about a big decision and what can be done to ensure that people learn during an important group discussion. Is our "problem solving" attitude the problem? I do not know about you, but I do not listen much when my focus is on winning, showing off or solving somebody's problem. By paying attention to "looking good," "making an impression," or "doing my best," I leave myself little time for learning or reflecting. Likewise, when I am under attack or under pressure to perform, concerned about avoiding embarrassment or threat, feeling vulnerable or incompetent, I notice that I create impenetrable defensive mechanisms that effectively prevent learning. When we approach a real-life scenario with an "I win, you lose" mindset, we inevitably end up in a tug-of-war, where conversations break down, listening is superficial, and no learning actually happens. Learning is not possible if a conversation is a competitive game—I win you lose. On the other hand, learning is inevitable when I think cooperatively—I win you win. (To prove this point I often engage groups in a negotiation exercise with the purpose of demonstrating how thinking "win-win" is the beginning of learning.) In a famous article, Chris Argyris talked about the need for managers to go beyond learning as problem solving and "... look inward...to reflect critically on their own behavior, identify the ways they often inadvertently contribute to the organization's problems, and then change how they act. ... learn how the very way they go about deŽfining and solving problems can be a source of problems in its own right." So, why is our problem solving attitude the problem? Well, because we want to do just that: Solve the problem. And our focus is not on learning. How can we do both? Five things to help "Action Learning" is a methodology that delivers results on two fronts at once: you learn while solving problems. Drawing on that methodology and on many other frameworks, here are a few ready-to-use suggestions to enable great learning conversations in teams: ·         MINDSET: Think win-win and make it a point to focus on listening as hard as you possibly can; ·         KEY QUESTION: Outline a key question that will direct the learning (that is, uncovering what you do not already know!); ·         TIME LIMITS: Establish clear time limits (i.e., 40 minutes), and state the purpose and desired outcome of the session in specific terms; ·         INFORMAL TONE: Hold the session in a non-formal setting. Avoid board rooms; ·         GROUNDRULE: Enforce the key "Action Learning" groundrule that "Statements can only be made in response to questions". This encourages curiosity and improves inquiry. Try it and see for yourself a dramatic improvement in your ability to reflect and learn together. Good luck! Adriano Pianesi | ParticipAction Consulting, Inc. | Increasing Your Return on Collaboration

Do you engage your team in vigorous debate to improve the quality of your decisions?

Wednesday September 14, 2011 If it is true that great leaders do not take "yes" for an answer, your success as a leader may depend on your willingness to push the inquiry of a group into passionate, emotional territory. Are you able to maximize the search for answers while keeping people engaged in vigorous and spirited debate? Does your team attend to the work of deciding what to do, or do they get diverted by interpersonal friction, "broken record" ideas, and intolerance for new questions? A bias I often notice is the idea that good decision making is dispassionate, rational, and totally unbiased. In fact, I believe the opposite is true: eliminating passion and emotion from decision making is not only nearly impossible; it's counterproductive. At the end of the day, those feelings are the same ones that will drive the successful implementation of the team's decision.   How do you make it vigorous? Rather than try to put passion aside, the key is to adopt a specific set of actions before, during, and after the actual conversation. BEFORE THE CONVERSATION: Establish ground-rules for how people should interact during the conversation, clarify the roles people are to play in the decision making process, and—most importantly—test to make sure that the group understands what is being decided (by asking people to restate it). DURING THE CONVERSATION: Ask questions and reframe statements as the group works though the decision. Involve everyone—especially the silent members—and summarize or revisit what has been said when the group reaches an impasse. Make good use of any distress that arises during the process by dismissing repetitive ideas or openly restating a controversial statement (to increase the controversy). Invite people to verbalize their emotions and reach out to other team members for help (to decrease the emotional discomfort). AFTER THE CONVERSATION: Ask people not to take themselves too seriously. Take the time to repair any damaged relationships or hurt feelings. Reflect on the value of the work that you've done and celebrate the effective ways in which the group has worked through a difficult decision.

 

What’s the soundtrack of team performance?

Wednesday July 13, 2011 This article made me think: Are small groups able to work better and more productively if music is played? I am clearly biased on this subject: I love music and use music generously in my sessions. As an avid listener who appreciates every music genre (with a little predilection for old school Blues) I have often wondered about the power of music to improve performance: How can music help your team be a better team? Have you ever thought of music in this way? What's music got to do with it? (sorry, Tina) Music can be used as a practice to establish productive norms of relaxed and joyous interaction among people. For example, how might music support the World Café principle of creating a hospitable space, where collective intelligence is given a chance to emerge?   Music can be used as a powerful, non-intrusive behavioral influence during a session. As background music—either online or live—my personal favorites are: a Vivaldi string quartet during reflection time, a joyous Pinetop Perkins's boogie-woogie piece during a long group exercise, a rumba from Cachao to accompany group dialogue, French Caribbean music to go with heavy group work, and Military Band music to close a session. Music can stand as a metaphor for superior performance. Like a good jam session, "music" and good vibrations are produced when a group is engaged in powerful collaborative work. Each group member improvises within a given set of guidelines to reach what behavioral theorist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls "flow," the optimal experience of heightened awareness and focused consciousness. Music, in this case, is the target objective of working together and ultimately its measure of success. Music can serve as an artifact of a group's learning experience. You might push the creative juices of a team and request, for instance, that they write and perform a song related to the contents of a session. Have you ever ended a workshop with a group singing an original rap in front of the class with a rap rhythm in the background? This way, music becomes a celebration of the work, and a powerful way to share the product of that work together.   Talking about music, here is a great group whose uncanny ability to create good vibrations will make your soul smile. Download a song here. Enjoy!  back to top

Do facts have the power to change your mind?

Wednesday June 8, 2011 We think that most people are objective and that, when presented with the right facts and evidence, they will be open to changing their minds. Don't you agree that if people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens? Well, I realized in working with organizational change that this notion is hardly true. In other words: Facts don't necessarily have the power to change people's minds. Sometimes I think that —especially in some organizations—quite the opposite is true.  How do we defend ourselves and our organizations from the powerful human tendency to find comfort in information that we already know and not challenge it? How do we ensure that we are not victims of cognitive biases when we make decisions and agree on actions?   How do you prevent cognitive bias in your decision making? ·         Because facts are powerless unless they are articulated in a story that helps us with shared meaning, in my work I stay away from statistics and data and focus on the story of a person impacted by the issue. ·         To prevent cognitive biases, ensure that people are free to admit when they are wrong. Research shows that organizations where a culture of admitting mistakes is strong are less prone to cognitive bias. When people are free to change their mind and encouraged to do so, it's easier for people to stop defending positions that are not confirmed by facts. ·         Use a variety of decision making tools to explore different options and celebrate disagreements as a healthy way to explore the fertile unknown. These kinds of conversations, called "inquiry on the edge", can become part of your toolkit to improve the decision making capacity of your team. To learn more about how to conduct an "Inquiry on the edge" click here.

Does your team learn from their mistakes?

 

Wednesday May 11, 2011 Accepting responsibility is critical for adult learning. It is only when we acknowledge that changing our behavior will improve a situation that we take steps to alter it. So after you accept responsibility for a situation, the first questions to ask yourself are: ·         How can I learn from my mistakes? ·         How do I contribute to the situation? ·         What can I change to achieve different results? Easier said than done.   Using mistakes to foster innovation in a team ·         Establish a "no blame" ground rule. Call a "wrong storming" meeting for 30 minutes to discuss how the team itself contributed to the issue. In fact, blaming others—bosses, co-workers, clients, suppliers — will make it very difficult for your team to learn anything. I am not saying that people outside of your team don't make mistakes; rather, mistakes made by others are part of the context in which your team operates and are often out of your team's control. ·         Encourage the team to talk about their mistakes without defensiveness. Go for a "round of mistakes" where—together with other business—you also encourage everyone to share the biggest mistake they made that week and what they learned from it. Done with a cohesive team and the right atmosphere, this exercise can become supremely cathartic. ·         Establish prizes for the most useful mistakes—in terms of learning—that your unit has committed in the last month. This creates an environment where mistakes fully explored and understood become a competitive advantage. Not to mention improving your team's capacity not to take themselves too seriously.  I realize that this advice runs counter to the cultural assumptions we have about mistakes and failure in many organizations. However, great organizations and powerful teams are not measured by the absence of mistakes but by their courage, compassion and creativity to deal with them, as well as by their overall ability to learn from them.    PS: Learn from the future, for a change. Sometimes learning from the past is not enough. Sometimes there is the need for a team to start fresh. In those situations - rather than fixing the past - a focus on the future and on what the team wants to create is way more productive. When that is the case, first you need to hold a session that creates a shared understanding of the current situation the team is dealing with. That can be a great springboard for the team to start building a shared vision of what  future can be possible together.

What is Leadership?

March 16, 2011 I find the concept of leadership full of paradoxes and ambiguities. The notion itself seems very personal to me and deeply ingrained in everyone's individual experience. Now, a complicated idea - difficult to understand or define - is very hard to teach to others. For some help I searched leadership quotes from big names to see if they give some clarity on this mystery: What does leadership mean at this time in human history? Here are a few that I found: ·         The key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority.Kenneth Blanchard, University of Massachusetts, Schatz, Managing By Influence, (Prentice-Hall, 1986) ·         Contrary to the opinion of many people, leaders are not born. Leaders are made, and they are made by effort and hard work. Vince Lombardi, 1913-1970, Professional football coach ·         Leadership, like swimming, cannot be learned by reading about it. Henry Mintzberg, McGill University School of Management, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row, 1973 ·         The best leader is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and the self-restraint to keep from meddling with them while they do it. Theodore Roosevelt, American President   ·         Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.  Steve Jobs   ·         Leadership includes wisdom of the mind, body, spirit, and emotions. Author Unknown What is your best leadership quote? Enter it in our Facebook contest here. My Leadership Questions I realized that when it comes to leadership, I have some key questions that I like to explore. Questions like: ·         What if true leadership is more about "unlearning" and "stop doing" than adopting yet another management concept? ·         What if all we need about leadership is an awareness of our "implicit" theory of leadership, the one we are already using? ·         If leadership is not only about influencing others, what can leadership also be about?

How Do You Help Experts Share Their Knowledge?

Wednesday February 16, 2011 Accessing the knowledge of experts is critical in order to make informed decisions, communicate an organization's messages, or effectively train. But extracting specialist knowledge with the purpose of sharing it with non-experts is often a challenge.   Expertise comes from years of familiarity -- and from a lot of opportunity, both formal and informal, to develop it. So while experts know their stuff and live in it like a fish live in the water, they don't always know how to best share what they know in "laymen's terms". They are often unable to define what information is most essential for a novice. We can relate to this, as we are all experts in some subject. But what would help us regain perspective? What thinking process should we go through to communicate meaningfully with people that have less knowledge than we have? What can help us work with a beginner's mind in our own area of expertise? back to top Three Questions to Ask/Three Things to Do To be effective with experts we need to ask some critical questions that connect their knowledge to the day-to-day life of a less-technical audience. ·         ASK: Among all the things that you know, what does our audience need to know? What would people care the most about?" What matters to your audience is a key criterion for selecting what truly needs to be shared vs. what would be nice to share. This brutally honest question can be helpful to clarify this for the expert: people wantto know things that meet their goals. DO: With your expert, list all the possible topics and select only the ones that your audience cares the most. ·         ASK: "What specific actions will your audience perform with the information you provide?" People understand specific actions better than abstract concepts. Keep people's attention on a complex subject with a call to action or an uncommon point of view right up front. Make a compelling case in actionable terms for your audience. This motivates people to follow with interest the expert's supporting evidence. DO: With your expert, brainstorm all the new things your audience will be doing differently with the new knowledge. ·         ASK: "How can we extract this information out of context? How can we communicate the how the context and some key principles interact?" Context is important to an expert. Often, they offer all sorts of contextual nuances -- and that is right, because their experience isn't based on black and white solutions. Instead they're nuanced based on variables that they've learned to master over the years. However, for the rest of us at the early stage of knowledge on a given topic, it is very helpful to name a pattern or a principle and then see it in action – even in all its different instances and contexts. DO: Ask your expert to generalize, identify a pattern, and discuss the difference instances of that pattern in varied contexts.

What Question Can Change Your Life in 2011?

Tuesday January 18, 2011 I love poetry and I want to take this opportunity to wish a great 2011 to all my friends with the verses of David Whyte, a poet that has brought his talent into the field of organizational development. I read his verses often in my work with groups and find his words graceful and energetic at the same time. This poem touches on the theme of the questions that waits us, those fateful questions that have the potential - if properly asked and given enough time - to make a difference in our life and work.   Enyoy! To your great questions!   back to top SOMETIMES Sometimes if you move carefully through the forest breathing like the ones in the old stories who could cross a shimmering bed of dry leaves without a sound, you come to a place whose only task is to trouble you with tiny but frightening requests conceived out of nowhere but in this place beginning to lead everywhere. Requests to stop what you are doing right now, and to stop what you are becoming while you do it, questions that can make or unmake a life, questions that have patiently waited for you, questions that have no right to go away. David Whyte   back to top