Webinar Epilogue: Innovation Case Study

/0 Comments/in /by

INTRODUCTION

Last month, Katherine Sanders and I offered a webinar about campus innovation. The case we looked at was one in which a large abandoned industrial building became available for Lehigh University to purchase and how we might use elements of transparent communication (the topic of our webinar) in gathering input, making a decision, and taking supporting actions afterward. At the end of the webinar, participants asked questions so I thought I’d share some of the highlights of this multi-year campus innovation.

Read more

Anchoring with the Status Quo

/0 Comments/in , , /by

by Patrick Farrell

Among the challenges change activists face is the seemingly unmovable “status quo”.

Often current practices and behaviors are widely accepted and form a basis for members of an organization to develop expectations for the future, their own and that of the organization. Change that involves modifying this current array of policies and practices (the status quo) can seem impossible. An unspoken expectation is that to enable a shift away from the status quo will require clear, comprehensive, and convincing evidence that the status quo has failed. In my experience, that is unlikely.
I suggest a somewhat different framing of the challenge of questioning current policies and practices, that I think allows options for challenging a current status quo, other than a frontal assault with rational arguments.

In price negotiations, there is a term called “anchoring”.

A first credible number named as part of a price negotiation has the benefit of establishing a reference price (anchoring) and the validity of that reference is rarely questioned. In fact, that initial reference can remain as a comparison throughout a price negotiation, leading to a buyer feeling they got a great deal (maybe much less than that anchor price) or not. An example is price negotiation when purchasing a car. An often-quoted reference price is a “sticker price” which the manufacturer helpfully prints and sticks on the vehicle. As an independent company, the car dealer can sell the car for any price they choose—but the sticker price has helpfully anchored the subsequent conversation with the buyer about what the car is “worth”, what the buyer might pay, and what the dealer might accept. One buyer response to this single-sided price anchoring is to introduce additional credible price anchors—like invoice price and average price from other local car dealers. Arguing that the sticker price should be ignored is probably useless—and maybe not true—but insisting there are other legitimate reference prices to be considered as well, is a sensible response and reduces the importance of the single anchor—sticker price—to one of several relevant pieces of information, all of which could be considered in the discussion.

What does this have to do with change and the status quo? Think of the status quo in your organization as the sticker price. It is a relevant reference for what the present and future of your organization might be, and often it is the only widely discussed reference point. Can we introduce other relevant and widely accepted reference points that might diverge from the accepted status quo, not to negate the status quo, but to offer alternative reference perceptions? If we can identify and clearly name these alternative perceptions, and particularly if they are already embedded in our organization like the status quo is, we can now have a broader conversation of possible futures.

Rather than fighting it, add to the status quo

Most organizations I know survive and even thrive carrying a number of seemingly unaligned perspectives and aspirations. In higher education (my background) these might include a desire to preserve traditions that have proven successful in the past, aspirations for higher ranking (US News, THE/WSJ… take your pick) and a desire to serve a broader demographic of students than had been the institution’s history. These three are not necessarily contradictory, but they can frequently conflict with each other in terms of decisions needed to make them happen. In this example, one of these, say historical tradition, might be perceived as the dominant “status quo” anchor, but the others already exist in the organizational culture and are widely accepted. If brought forward as additional views of “status quo”, organizational decision making around change doesn’t need to solely reference tradition, but can acknowledge a number of reference points that need to be considered and may result in decisions that are not aligned with only one of the reference views.

Enabling multiple status quo perspectives builds a better change agenda and support for change.

In my experience, winning a rational argument about the shortcomings of a widely accepted organizational status quo is a fool’s errand. A more effective approach is to elevate additional “status quo” perspectives already present in the organization’s culture to reduce the power of a single status quo reference, and make it one of several references. In that situation, proving the current status quo to be wrong is unnecessary, and time and energy will be better spent developing a change agenda that recognizes multiple perspectives on the organization’s present, and consequently multiple perspectives on the organization’s future.

Are You the Smartest One in the Room (SOiTR)? Does it matter?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

by Patrick Farrell

You might be the Smartest One in the Room. However, not only does it not matter to a group’s performance who, if anyone, is the SOiTR, but the competition to prove who is, can be destructive to the group’s effectiveness.

It doesn’t matter who is SOiTR.

It doesn’t matter who, if anyone, holds the title of SOiTR. Effective working groups gather a diverse membership and put those diverse perspectives to work to make recommendations or decisions, given the groups charge.  Experience and expertise will vary across members of the group, and all members should expect to contribute what they have in that regard, recognizing theirs is not the only expertise and experience that is relevant. What “smart” means will vary depending on the topic, and may incorporate biases based on a person’s background or identity. Further, “smart” is often considered a reason why one person’s views should carry more weight than others.

The competition to identify SOiTR is counterproductive.

I see a corrosive effect of allowing the SOiTR competition to unfold in a committee or working group. In my experience, the SOiTR competition can begin even before a working group first meets. It may be exhibited by those who feel they are likely to be the SOiTR being inflexible around meeting times or places or conditions. The intention seems to be to clarify a hierarchy even before a conversation begins. That can continue in obvious and non-obvious ways—who sits where, who talks first, who sets or approves a tentative agenda…the list can go on. Some folks profess to only want to be efficient and not waste time. For them, a starting point is what they might suggest is known and agreed-upon, even if it is neither. Though the behavior may be evident to everyone else, those most involved may not see it, thus confronting them after-the-fact may only result in defensive and obstructive responses.

How can we prevent SOiTR behavior?

If we want to avoid SOiTR behavior and we need to anticipate, and act. A proactive organizer can frame the work to be done and suggest a process for doing it even before a group meets—subject to agreement or change once the group gets together. If you are the organizer/chair for the group, you can suggest a range of processes that will make the group work effectively, and make SOiTR behavior more difficult. This framing of how the group will do its work very early sets a basis for the group, and that early framing can be powerful in implicitly setting behavioral expectations.

How might we do this in practice? It sounds like 3rd grade, but at the outset, we agree everyone should feel free to raise issues and weigh in on key issues, not only by volunteering their thoughts,  but by deliberately going around the room in seating order (or anything else you like) for comment. One approach might be to start a discussion of a new topic with a quick ‘round the room, everyone contributes about hopes and concerns on the issue. Then invite a free-flowing discussion. Close with another ‘round the room on new insights, or remaining concerns.

Agree on how the group will work before issues arise.

We might start the group’s work with agreement on how we will work; how will discussion go (see above), how will new ideas surface, how will you gather views from folks not in the room, and how will decisions be made. Not only is establishing these processes important, but the doing itself sets a model of how the group will work. Engaged groups will understand that not everyone will agree on key issues, yet the group may be expected to deliver a single recommendation. Agreeing on how to best get to that point is important to establish up-front. If you are the chair, you may need to be a little insistent at first, as some folks are used to talking first, not being questioned, and finding their ideas elevated among others. Quieter colleagues may be accustomed to not talking, or waiting to see how their ideas will be received. Everyone will need to adjust to a new dynamic.

Join in or opt out.

In my experience many SOiTR folks will appreciate that with agreed-upon processes in place, the venue is not competitive, and they will participate in the group in a collaborative way.  If some feel uncomfortable with the shift in dynamic, they might eventually opt out. While their opting out is not ideal, it is preferable to derailing an otherwise productive and inclusive group.

Are you the SOiTR? Neither having a SOiTR, nor the dynamic of establishing who is the SOiTR is helpful to group performance. We can avoid a destructive competition for power by the early establishment of group norms around visibility, voice, and appreciation.

 

Storytelling in Support of Change: It’s great except for when it isn’t.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

by Patrick Farrell

Storytelling in Support of Change: It’s great except for when it isn’t.

The idea of storytelling—or narrative—to present past, present, or imagined futures has been around probably for as long as folks have had spoken, drawn or written communication. In many communities, storytelling is a primary way in which history is ‘recorded’, unexplained events are made understandable, and even future scenarios are envisioned. Moreover, stories are remembered, recounted, maybe embellished or altered…but can spread a view of the past, present, and future well beyond what a heavily researched and footnoted text might do. No wonder storytelling is also common in organizations, and is often intentionally or accidentally, part of any change initiative in organizations.

I want to write a bit about what I see as the enormous benefits of storytelling, and some substantial problems that can come along with the stories. I do not claim to be an expert storyteller—in fact I am not particularly good at it and envy those who are. I also claim no expertise in the psychology of storytelling.  A very readable start might be Storytelling in Organizations: The power and traps of using stories to share knowledge in organizations by D. Soule and D. G. Wilson (1). Soule and Wilson note a number of kinds of knowledge that might be shared through storytelling; in this note I am focusing mostly on organizational views, particularly in relation to organizational change.

Storytelling in a change initiative can be powerful and engaging…

I have observed stories very helpfully promote new perspectives and introduce a review and reframing of foundational principles in ways that would likely have incited vehement opposition if presented otherwise. I have also seen stories, some having graduated into lore, intentionally or accidentally perpetuate organizational ways of thinking that are narrow, exclusive, and may reflect a single perspective among many relevant ones.

As an aside, storytelling is often characterized as a means of knowledge transfer—which it clearly can be. From my viewpoint, stories are examples of how specific situations may be generalized as part of our learning to help explain or predict a different situation—what we would call inductive learning. Most of K-12 and higher education relies on deductive learning—taking well-established and codified results of other people’s inductive learning and getting students to apply these generalized ideas to a variety of specific situations. Beyond all the attractive attributes of stories, they are also learning challenges to develop our inductive learning muscles. One might further note that inductive learning has numerous error paths—generalizations from a few observations that turn out to be wrong, and might require some skills and guidance to test and figure out whether a generalization is on a good path or leading to absurd and probably wrong extrapolations.

Storytelling is a natural way to embed an organization’s values and beliefs into a context that resonates with listeners, and that we remember and are often eager to retell to others. The best storytellers not only hold our interest, perhaps by showing abstract values applied to people like us, but also anticipate our eagerness to make sense of what we see and hear in ways that builds confidence in the future. Also, the best storytellers know we’ll repeat the story, and will embed short key phrases that are easy to remember, that we’ll use in our retelling– a clever way to keep us from distorting the story as it gets retold.

The result of stories well-planned and well-told is clear communication of what we are about as an organization, told in a way that most of us can find ourselves somewhere in the story. Stories about our past, present and future, can help frame how we make sense of what we have seen and heard. At their best, they can help us put our own observations into a bigger picture, perhaps changing our perspective of what might seem like random and unconnected events into a more ordered and understandable whole.

Storytelling can also reinforce limited perspectives and a cultural status quo.

Most of these terrific outcomes from great storytelling also have a different side—one that can overplay our commonality, oversimplify past actions brought to the present, and suggest that present and future hold less uncertainty than they actually do. Further, we often offer one canonical story about a set of organizational traits. Inevitably, that story has embedded in it elements of culture, perspective, and history, and usually one culture, one perspective, and one history. Despite a storytellers’ best efforts, my earlier suggestion that the best stories allow us to find ourselves in them—is misleadingly true for those who do resonate with the embedded features of the story (misleading because the universal story suggests we all have the same story), and it may be distressingly untrue for others.

I am not advocating abandoning storytelling. I am suggesting better awareness of what stories can do really well, and what they don’t do so well. In fact, carelessly constructed stories may reinforce the thinking of some parts of the organization, and lead others to feel they are not really a part of the organization at all, as they not only don’t see themselves in the current story, but may see their organizational history dismissed as not part of the ‘real’ story.

How can we make best use of storytelling to support change?

Soule and Wilson show a variety of organizational learning actions and suggest which might be better addressed through storytelling and which, by other means. One suggestion I’d make is to think through an organizational change with this information or something like it in mind, choosing when and how to make best use of the attributes of storytelling. I have heard from a number of leaders who feel they are natural storytellers, and perhaps get the most positive feedback when they are in that role. I’d hope this discussion as well as more fundamental research in this area would encourage us all to recognize how valuable storytelling can be, and that it is not always a best approach even if it is one we might be most comfortable with. We will need a repertoire of approaches, and a plan to know which to employ when.

I’ll make a second suggestion focused on storytelling itself: continue to use stories and narrative and take advantage of all those great attributes of gaining attention, carrying messages in ways direct statements could not, and being repeatable, so transmission is probable—while recognizing that usually there is no singular story, but multiple intertwined stories. I suggest storytellers encourage other stories to emerge, whether they complement or contradict the starting story. A goal might be to build a fabric of stories that are related to each other, but not in competition. All can be true, yet none need to be Truth.

Are there other perspectives on Storytelling?

My colleague Katherine Sanders and I have decided to write on a common topic, each from our own experience and perspective. You can find Katherine’s post on this topic at (Blog by Katherine Sanders of Sanders Consulting). We are starting a discussion thread on LinkedIn on this title, and invite folks who would like to comment or contribute their own view to go to either of our LinkedIn profiles and look for the post you want to comment on or add to.

References:

  1. Storytelling in Organizations: The power and traps of using stories to share knowledge in organizations Deborah Soule, LILA Harvard University and Daniel Gray Wilson, LILA Harvard University, Lila Proceedings, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2002.

Forecasting as Part of a Change Initiative

/0 Comments/in , , /by

by Patrick Farrell

Organizational change is about creating a new future for my organization. Sometimes that new future is easy to see and understand, usually because the change seems to be something we are familiar with, and have done before. Under those conditions, whoever is the primary initiator of change probably has a pretty clear idea of when and how the change will be accomplished and what the organization will look like when we are ‘finished’. It may also be the case that the process and outcome are so evident that most of the members of the organization can also visualize the outcome.

Transformational changes to an organization can be quite different, in that the changes envisioned are likely to substantially change the organization, and some of the direct or indirect effects of that change are not easy to anticipate. Even more challenging is when the change ‘target’ and maybe process are evolving as the work is underway. Overlay uncertainty (real goals) on uncertainty (how we’ll get there) and it seems we will have a real mess on our hands.

Forecasting Creates a Possible Future for Your Organization’s Transformation

One of the approaches that I have tried to use in a variety of ways to help (somewhat) with this tangle of tangles, is a version of forecasting. The idea is to posit a possible future that is not assured, but plausible, as a way to begin to visualize where the organization is now, relative to that plausible future, what needs to happen to get there, and what we might expect along the way.   In its simplest form, this is a proposal for the future. Sometimes this is put to work in a simulated backward-looking view as a ‘history of the future’. In this example, we might posit where we want/hope/expect our organization to be in the future (say in 5 years) and pretend we are historians looking back 5 years from now, writing the story of how we got there, pivotal moments, key insights, etc. From this effort we might glean valuable insights into what we think we need to do to arrive at the posited future.  While I like this approach, it relies on a plausible (singular) future that is widely accepted, on which to build the ‘history’.

In the land of uncertainly, that plausible future is only that—plausible—and a useful (though perhaps mind-spinning question) might be—what other plausible futures are there that we should consider? Now it looks like forecasting is only making my uncertainty about change even more of a mess.  But maybe not.

Consider forecasting with a scenario planning flavor. Suppose in our initial thinking about our organizational future, even with a set of changes in mind, we propose not one, but several plausible futures that could accrue as a result of where we are and what we are planning to do. Recognize that while we are busily doing this change work, the world outside our organization has not stopped, so our relationship to that world will continue to change as well. Can we spend a little time thinking through different scenarios that might have us arrive at somewhat different futures from a common starting point with similar change efforts? Some futures might seem most likely, some highly unlikely, but I have found great benefit from forcing the conversation around multiple future states.  If you like math, think of a very limited Monte Carlo simulation. If you don’t like math—don’t think of it.

How does Forecasting Help Organizational Change?

How might this help? Out of the universe of possible future states for our organization, we will have thought about not just one, but several possibilities (some of which we might really want to avoid). We can evaluate one as most probable, and talk very publicly about that as our best estimate forecast for the new future we hope our changes will bring. We can also acknowledge that our actions could result in other outcomes—some of which we might be just fine with, some of which we really want to avoid. Obviously the latter allows an open discussion of what we want to achieve and what we want to avoid, and acknowledges the unspoken and maybe unspecified uncertainty folks feel at the outset. The effort also gives us some pretty clear guidance of what we need to do, or not do, to try to avoid some of the outcome scenarios we saw and hated.

I am a big fan of forecasting—not with certainty but with plausibility or highest likelihood. I like the idea of exploring other possible futures or forecasts, not as equally likely, but as possible and instructive. In my experience, for a community embarking on a major change, whether everyone is involved or many are watching to see how this plays out, suggesting what the future might look like with appropriate recognition of alternatives, can be very helpful. It can encourage a group to move from immobilization by uncertainty to a greater comfort with how uncertainty may play out, and hopefully greater confidence in themselves and the organizations ability to see and act as elements of the future appear and conform, or not, to that forecast. And, of course, we very publicly revise the forecast as reality intrudes.

How Does Forecasting Help Change Leaders?

For change “leaders” at many levels of the organization, forecasting gives a chance to share a view of the future, acknowledge the uncertainly embedded in that view, yet be as clear as you can be about what the outcome will be for the organization. Many listeners to such a forecast expect leaders to be better informed and have a more comprehensive view than they do—and really want to hear what you expect and what worries you in that forecast. Looking at the future in an open way, not as a sales pitch for your ideas, will likely give a much more accurate look, and that honest look shared with the community is likely to help the community be better prepared to do the hard work of change.

Control. Are you sure you want that?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

by Patrick Farrell

The notion of control—organizational control–the ability to issue commands and make things happen is alluring. In the midst of a change process, it sounds like control of a wide range of elements is the only way to be sure all the pieces work like they should to get the result you want.  Further, if a senior leader is responsible for the outcome of the effort, it may seem the only way to carry out the responsibility properly is to have final say on every key element and how they will fit together.

In my experience, this way of thinking is widely held, frequently espoused, and in most cases, not useful.

How much control should senior leaders give up during a change project?

I suggest senior leaders think carefully about the elements of a change project, both present and future, and the key decision points that are likely to occur. For the moment, accept the asymmetry of responsibility or accountability with only limited control, and imagine how that approach could be helpful. In fact, I suggest senior leaders imagine how much “control” they can give to others in the project—and do so sincerely.

Ego aside, exerting control takes a lot of time and energy—bandwidth that might not be very usefully spent. Exerting control also sends a number of messages to colleagues and direct reports—you aren’t sure you trust them to make good choices, and while their efforts might inform you, your judgement is still the only significant judgment that counts. None of these messages are likely to engage others in your organization to do their best work, nor are they  going to build capacity for the next change.

So—how much control should you “keep”? Enough so that you, too can own the results going forward.

How to be accountable during a change project.

As a senior leader, you also have the responsibility and accountability for supporting the work of those around you. In particular, you are responsible for supporting the process and work of committees you ask to do work. Members of some committees, while proud of their work, may be reluctant to be the face of the result, anticipating internal or external criticism and push-back of their conclusions (a good reminder of culture work still to be done). Want the next set of committee members to agree to serve? They will be watching what you do here. Accept the work of the committee, credit them for their energy and creativity, then own the outcome so if there are critiques, they come to you. You don’t need to defend the committee’s opinions. You do need to defend them in terms of what they did (it’s what you asked them to do) how they did it (they discussed this with you) , and what conclusions they came to (these are from the committee, but it is exactly why you asked these people to serve).

Safety and authority while overseeing a change project.

Let me change the subject for a minute to Safety and Authority. Safety is about whether and how you can use some of the perhaps unusual suggestions I make without feeling your stature is at stake—or even you job is. Authority, which I’ll comment on in a minute, is the way you view yourself and others might view you in terms of your capacity to do things. If you looked at my bio, you will know I am an older white man. You can’t see other aspects of who I am, but you might guess. For most of my administrative career in higher education, I had a ‘backup’ appointment as a tenured professor. This adds to a fairly privileged position from which to make choices, take chances, and deal with the consequences if things go way wrong. Readers may or may not be concerned about these issues, but it’s useful to recognize your own situation—and that of others. I am not suggesting you don’t take risks, but be smart about them and take ones that will really matter.

I mention Authority here as a shorthand to recognize that my experiences, for example with giving control to others, come from a starting point in which my authority wasn’t really questioned. I realize not everyone reading this is in that situation. I hope the suggestions I make are useful and applicable, even if your situation has challenges mine does not.

Let me return to my starting topic. Control, and the related issues of trust and engagement.  These are interrelated, and I encourage leaders with power or control to think carefully about how to delegate (really delegate, not cosmetically delegate) to others, not as a favor but as recognition that they may be in a better position to make a good decision. For those decision responsibilities you need to retain—don’t apologize but be clear how and why you will exercise that responsibility.

Are there other perspectives on Control?

My colleague Katherine Sanders and I have decided to write on a common topic, each from our own experience and perspective. You can find Katherine’s post on this topic at (Blog by Katherine Sanders of Sanders Consulting). We are starting a discussion thread on LinkedIn on this title, and invite folks who would like to comment or contribute their own view to go to either of our LinkedIn profiles and look for the post you want to comment on or add to.

[email protected]

CONNECT ON LINKEDIN