Kategorie: Change

Study: Gender difference in building self-confidence

In an 2020 IFD Allensbach study (IfD – Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach (IfD) (ifd-allensbach.de)), 800 women and 800 men were asked: „What people draw their self-confidence from varies greatly. According to your observations, what does it particularly depend on whether women / men are self-confident? What from this list is particularly important?“

On top one for men was „success at work“ with 82% builds their confidence, followed by „finances“ at 77%. On top one for women was „popularity“ with 74% builds their confidence, followed by „good looks“ 72% Women answered only 66% that „success at work“ is important to their confidence.

Men want almost equal amounts of „recognition from women“ (51%) and „recognition from men“ (45%). Women voted differently in terms of gender. „Recognition from men“ supports self-confidence more (45%) than from „recognition from women“ only with (29%).

One assumption of the last fact could be that gender equivalence is more ingrained in the minds of men than in the minds of women. Women seem to value the recognition of men more than that of women (maybe this is just a wrong interpretation of a statistic 😉 ).

What is your opinion on this interesting fact?

Overcome difficulties of change

Change is on everyone’s lips and ears. Nothing seems to be as important as this word, this activity. When reading job descriptions, one of the most important skills is to be change-affine. Change is something natural, we change all our lives without pressure. It is the normal changing development from baby to child, to teenager and to adult and finally to senior. Some people seem to change only physically. They then get stuck at certain points in, for example, childhood.

If one wants to change an organisation, this is just as natural as the environment often changes. The tricky thing about change in an organisation is that everyone is expected to change in the same direction at the same time. The top leadership decides that the organisation should change in a certain direction. These leaders themselves develop the desired changes at their own pace and to fit their thought patterns. Often, they do not consider that everyone in the organisation has their own thought patterns, beliefs, and assumptions. In this way, they are one step ahead of the rest of the organisation, having worked on these changes months or years before the others. The lower hierarchies then must adapt their beliefs, thinking patterns and thus their behaviour in a much shorter period, mostly expected to happen ad hoc. This is almost impossible because they are only told the reasons and purpose behind the change and could not figure them out themselves. They are expected to follow the implementation rather than understand it. To use the above image, it is like being a baby and having to transition from that directly to adulthood. This is not possible because the necessary developmental steps would be missing.

Change is necessary to survive in the VUCA world, that is clear. Change alone is not enough, in my opinion. Only if everyone wants to change and everyone is given the same time to change, as is currently lived more at senior level, then sustainable change takes place, because everyone in the organization could take the small development steps.

Idea for implementation: To use the entire organization and its expertise, the sustainable method would be to invite all members of the organization (participative change). This is often impossible. To still hear, take along and „use“ the various areas and departments, ambassadors could be sent from each area. These ambassadors are not sent by the executives or apply independently. They are elected by the area or department, through the colleagues. Through this critics will be more likely to entering the „development group“. One rule should be, that the „development-group“ is a judgmental-free space. Such an approach of working participatively changes the basic assumptions at the lowest level of Edgar Schein’s culture model. This takes courage and a perceived loss of power from top management, but it is worth trying as the intelligence and willingness of the entire organization will drive change and not just a „handful“ of people chosen for their hierarchical level.

#changemanagement #organization #VUCA #Idea

The power of feedforward

Employees are familiar with the construct of feedback, developed with good intentions, but not always used with them.

Some of you may have experienced feedback being misused to express opinions, assumptions and prejudices about the feedback recipient. The feedback giver tends to project their own behaviour, or the behaviour they are forbidden, unwilling or unable to see, onto the feedback recipient. Even if the feedback is given with good intentions on the part of the feedback giver, the issue is that we are talking about the past. This in turn reinforces the image that the subconscious mind has created of the feedback giver towards the feedback receiver. Which leads to a „vicious circle“ as the feedback giver wants to have his perception confirmed and only perceives the nuances of the feedback receiver that fit the perception of the feedback giver and wants to perceive.

One hurdle is that, I suppose, none of us has a time machine, to change the past. The other hurdle is that sometimes feedback comes as a real surprise to the feedback receiver, who has already forgotten the situation or behaviour to which the feedback giver is referring. Memories are never identical or logical. This leads to the uncomfortable and sometimes helpless feeling when we have to go to a feedback meeting. Perhaps there is a satisfaction in the feedback giver telling a person ‚the truth‘, forgetting that this is only the individual perception. As each of us constructs our own truth/reality based on the experiences we have had. 

To be more effective, efficient and sustainable, and to create team power, we need to reflect on our behaviour and attitudes before we follow up with actions or conversations. This is why Marshall Goldsmith’s ‚feedforward‚ approach is so powerful in making a real difference. In this setting, feedforward givers and takers focus on the future and suggest strategies for a better future, without focusing on the past, which only serves to consolidate. 

The following brings the difference between feedforward and feedback to the point:

Feedforward helps to understand before the activity what is expected, how one should behave and interact. Through such reflection it is clear what is required of each individual in order to achieve the goal and a change in behavior is possible as it comes from oneself.

Feedback provides insight into how the external view on a person is, regarding the interaction and behaviour towards others. This creates awareness, but often comes too late or can come from a person whom the feedback recipient does not trust. In addition, an imbalance can arise, since mostly only the perception of the feedback provider is heard.

Feedforward entails three key elements:

  1. Both must adopt a benevolent inner attitude and mindset: The attitude is like an inner voice. If we take the view that our opinion is the only right one and must be followed, then feedforward will not work. However, if we are open to the opinions of others in order to achieve a common goal together, then feedforward is an effective method. Feedforward ensures that all ideas are heard and that the goal is pursued with passion by all, because both parties feel accepted and valued. 
  2. Focus on the solution rather than the problem: To support this thinking, it would be helpful to eliminate the question word „why“ as it leads back to the past and not to the future. Instead, it would be better to use the question word „what“ to find a future solution. This is proven by Tasha Eurich in her studies on self-awareness. In combination with Prof. Dr. Otto Scharmer’s Theory U of intensive listening and imagining the future together (Presensing), leads to open up the mind and uncover opportunities for a better future.
  3. Developing specific solutions together: This is a resource-oriented method and looks at existing competencies and how they can be supported.

Idea for feedforward, when you feel safe:

  1. Describe your goal clearly and simply
  2. Ask for two suggestions and support creative ideas
  3. Listen carefully and write down the suggestions
  4. Just thank you without apology or defensiveness
  5. Roles are swapped regardless of hierarchy
  6. In larger groups, a new conversation partner is sought and the procedure is repeated

#feedback #feedforward #mindset #TheoryU #Selfawareness #unconciousness #psychologicalsafe #success

Of meaningfull importance for learning and improvement: Reflection

“Without reflection, we go blindly on our way, creating more unintended consequences, and failing to achieve anything useful.” – Margaret J. Wheatley

This quote of Margaret J. Whealtey is fantastic as it brings it to the point. To learn from others around you, your circumstances your are in and from your self to become your better self reflection is more than important and needed.

But how reflection could be easy mastered in the full days we are facing with. Here are some thoughts and tipps for this:

Helpfull is to go through these four steps, which you can see in the picture:

1. Step: Observe

the situation in a retrospective or during the situation from the metaperspective

2. Step: Reflect

with the following questions:

a. What?

This question focus on the past. (e.g., What in detail had happened? What are the facts?)

b. So what?

This question focus on the present (e.g., What I have learned? What is my conclusion?

c. Now what?

This question focus on the future. (e.g., What I will change or retain in the future? What direction I will follow?)

3. Step: Plan

the steps and think in small nuggets (KISS = Keep it short and simple) which is really feasible. To make it easy you can follow these Acronyms:

4. Step: Act

following your plan. This is the most difficult step as the new way of interaction is new and unusual to this. The first times it will feel foreign and perhaps a bit threatening. It is like jumping the first time from three-meter diving tower. During the jump you sometimes regret it to have been jumped. But when you have landed save down in the water, you feel proud and happy.

For your reflection you need:

  • Time and space
  • A good environment with a positive atmosphere
  • Emotional supportive environment

Spiral dynamics: Motives as basic of our behaviour and success in the VUCA world

n communication, it is a challenge to be seen and recognized as a partner. Conversations at eye level /as peers are a challenge, when different ways of thinking meet. Flexible thinking would be helpful in such moments. This requires a different attitude as well as a different level of consciousness than exists mainly in the Western world.

Clare C. Graves, evidenced by Don Beck and Chris Cowan, has found different levels of consciousness, which she distinguishes into eight different levels of existence with different patterns of thinking. These thought patterns are based on the motives that drive them. She called this Spiral Dynamics.

Most people in the Western world belong to the first levels / graves (Graves, C. W. (1974). Human Nature Prepares for a Momentous Leap. The Futurist, 72-87.). What they have in common is an egocentric attitude.

The levels of existence, also called Spiral Dynamics. The eight levels / graves are colour coded. They are referred to as WMem. WMem is defined as follows: „A WMem is expressed in a world-view, a value system, a psychological level of existence, a belief structure, an organizational principle, a way of thinking and living“ (Beck and Cowan, 2008, p. 64).

In addition, authors Don Edward Beck and Christopher C. Cowan distinguish between first and second Tier thinking. People with a first Tier mindset usually behave in an ego-driven manner with the main question in mind: „What is the benefit for me? What’s in it for me?“ The first Tier includes five different graves of consciousness with the colours beige, purple, red, blue and orange.

The basic motifs and world-view of the first Tier are:

– Physiological stability (beige),

– Security (purple),

– Domination and power (red),

– Sense and order (blue),

– Autonomy and manipulation (orange),

– Equality and community (green)

The second Tier includes two different graves of consciousness. The second Tier world-view enables the person to respond flexibly to change, to take interconnected, comprehensive perspectives, and to recognize the dynamics of the whole earth, enabling macro-level action. This mindset is consistent with ecosystem and empathic relationship. People with the second Tier mindset tend to behave in an eco-oriented way, asking the most important questions, The questions in their mind are: „What is the benefit of the system in which I am involved? What is the bigger picture and impact on the earth / my environment?“ This second Tier includes two different consciousnesses with the colours yellow and turquoise.

The basic motifs and world-views of the second Tier are:  

– Flexibility and natural flow (yellow),

– Life and harmony (turquoise)

Most people are mixed types with different degrees of expression of the first or second level.

The transition from the first to the second level is crucial for the transition from ego-system to eco-system, which is necessary in the VUCA world (Voluntil, Uncertain, Complex, Ambigue) and to evolve to a „Learning Organisation“.

Because of the attitude and mindset of flexibility and harmony, there are no biases, prejudices, or other hierarchical challenges to overcome. The focus is on solving a problem together and developing a process, not on who gets the credit.

Leading in the VUCA world

To become a true learning organization, it is important to give employees the opportunity to contribute their knowledge and share it within the organization. To do this, the current leadership style should be looked at critically.

Two leadership principles are readily applied in the VUCA world (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity). These are the laisse faire and the self-management-team leadership style (see speadsheet). These two styles are very close and have many positive aspects, but they can create confusion and force micropolitical behavior.

Micropolitics: employees strive to increase their own power/influence in the organization in their own interest. This leads to informal rules of the game, social structures that can lead to informal power, and change behaviors in organizations.

My favorite model for leadership that fits best to the VUCA world is the systemic approach SANTIAGO (an acronym) by Prof. Dr. phil. Dr. h.c. Rolf Arnold. The basis of the leadership style is dialogic leadership with a humanistic, subject-oriented and systemic mindset. The attitude of the leaders is not to think they know or can do everything, but to develop solutions with the employees.

To lead in this way, eight principles are important:

  1. Surrogant (deputy) leadership: employees are trusted to lead themselves. Leadership is a dialogue in which individual human resources are developed. In this approach, leaders are more facilitators and motivators.
  2. Autopoiesis: this means that human beings are self-sustaining and self-organized. Leaders bring employees out of their own „autopilot“ by questioning, via further development. This moving out of the comfort zone must be accompanied and moderated.
  3. Never short-term (sustainability): through this approach, managers focus on the development of employees. This leads to medium and long-term effects on the organization and overall development.
  4. Transformation of interpretive patterns: Leaders in this approach understand their employees‘ interpretive thinking patterns that we have all built from our past experiences. Leaders guide employees to break and change these patterns and transform them into more appropriate interpretations, which means development for the employee.
  5. Interpretation: interpretation is individual and based on each person’s past. The leader must ensure that the different interpretations lead to successful cooperation and promote the development of the organization.
  6. Arrangement: In this approach, the leader creates a two-way teaching and learning environment (leader <=> staff). Employees are empowered, motivated and take responsibility for their development and business results. The basis for this kind of leadership is trust and regular dialogue, as well as an open-minded curiosity for the individual.
  7. Go with serenity: The leader needs a lot of serenity with this approach, because the acceptance and implementation of this leadership approach takes time and contradicts the learned patterns of traditional leadership. It is necessary to break through the patterns of interpretation.
  8. Organizational learning: Through staff development, the organization can learn. Organizational learning happens through the employees as part of the organization. The organization influences the employees, but it also works in the other direction. The behavior of the individual employee influences the organization.

To make sure that you are as a leader on the right way, ask your team anonymously, if these elements are lived by you. Have you every tried to get honest feedback from your employees regarding your leadership style?

Thoughts about: Is knowledge power?

Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) said: „Knowledge is power.“

Does education equal power, or is knowledge enough to be powerful? That would be in my eyes too short-sighted.

Knowledge supports the expression of one’s own opinion, which is freedom and a fundamental right in Germany.

Does expressing an informed opinion actually lead to more power?

In the VUCA world, knowledge is more accessible than in the time of Francis Bacon. Anyone can acquire knowledge, so titles or positions do not necessarily mean that there is more knowledge in specific areas than in hierarchically lower positions or less status.

So knowledge is not the same as power. Knowledge enables people to change things, to innovate, but it is not identical with the ability to gain power. Therefore other abilities of character are necessary.

Here are a few thoughts about „Knowledge is power“.

  1. Does knowledge mean knowing the truth? What is truth? We construct our own truth, knowledge is interpreted differently, which is why only an approximation to the truth is possible, if it exists at all.
  2. What does general knowledge mean? Who has determined what we mean by general knowledge? General knowledge is taught at school, the basis comes from Humboldt in the 19th century. Is this still up to date and contemporary? Is general education sufficient to prepare for the VUCA world? Who knows which knowledge is really useful to find one’s way in life?
  3. How does knowledge help to find one’s way in life? We all know it, we plan our life and then something comes up, and we have to change our goals. Broad-based knowledge helps us to act flexibly and to find our way in the VUCA world. One-sided knowledge can lead to a lack of flexibility, and unforeseen events can throw you off track.
  4. Does science lead to becoming wiser? Science and knowledge are challenging to define. Philosophers suggest that despite knowledge, we do not become wiser, but only refine our view of the world until intractable situations arise that require a new world-view.

(To read more about this, please visit: Wer viel weiß, hat viel zu sagen – ist Wissen Macht? (uni.de))

Knowledge does not equal power, but it makes the knower powerful. Knowledge makes it possible to understand things and to recognize connections. It can support going new ways, developing ideas and discovering one’s own life path/passion. It can also lead to other people not being able to understand connections that are clearly recognizable to the knower, and this then leads to discomfort or can be interpreted as a threat. Knowledge can lead to power or be seen as disturbing.

Modification of the „Agile Manifesto“ as a blueprint for general change

The values of the agile Manifesto, focusing on humans and less on process. Which doesn’t mean that processes or plans are not valued, but they are, accordingly to the agile manifesto, less valued than human interactions. 

Here are the four principles:

„Individuals and interactions over processes and tools.

Working software over comprehensive documentation

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

Responding to change over following a plan“ 

(source: Manifesto for Agile Software Development (agilemanifesto.org))

With minor modifications, this can be used as a blueprint for all the changes we face, including organizational development.

One transfer-idea outside the software industry could be like this:

  1. Individual expertise and interactions versus processes and tools. 
  2. Speaking and deep listening like peers across all hierarchical levels versus one-sided analysis in a select group
  3. Collaborating across hierarchies instead of lonely guidance from a select few 
  4. Welcoming all ideas and changes instead of following a fixed and predefined plan.

In my eyes it would be good to use the „prophet in the own county“ as this person is part of the culture, knows better than anyone else, where the weaknesses are. With these four principles, we would turn those affected into involved, with the result that all changes are supported in the implementation and lived sustainably.

To summarize the above transfer-idea of the agile manifesto to the point: 

The wisdom of changes lies in the organization and the people of the organization and not outside. 

Therefore, listen to the people in your organization, observe the way of interactions during meetings on the corridor. Listen to the unspoken words and the signals in your organization, and focus less on documents and processes. Documents and processes are needed and important, but they are in my eyes not the holy grale, it’s more the question of balance.

Two sides of feedback

Feedback is the result of the comparison between the target and actual state by a second person.

If the assessment of the state between actual and target is the same in the eyes of the second person, then the feedback is positive. The feedback recipient receives recognition and appreciation. The difference is that recognition refers to performance and appreciation refers to personality.

If the target and actual state do not match on the part of the feedback giver, the feedback receiver is criticized. We can learn from both. From the positive perceived feedback, we learn to conform.

From the negative perceived feedback, the criticism, we can learn where a second person sees improvements for us. Studies have shown that negative feedback, criticism, can lead to improved performance (Kluger & DeNisi 1996).

With any feedback, it is important to understand that the source of the feedback is the second person and their own construct.

If the feedback is given with good intentions and no hidden agenda, it is a fantastic resource for the feedback receiver to learn from.

However, feedback can also be part of:

  • Instrumentalization in the form of manipulation techniques, such as false compliments or in the worst case with the intention of humiliation.
  • Projection of one’s own behaviour, this happens unconsciously, the feedback giver’s own behaviour is transferred to the feedback receiver.

Examine the mindset with which feedback is given and consider whether you can learn from it or whether it is done in an instrumentalized way. 

In this way, the feedback receiver has the chance to learn twice:

  1. About the self: How others, especially the feedback givers, observe and evaluate feedback receiver own behaviour.
  2. About the feedback giver: With the feedback, the construct of the feedback giver will be uncovered.

For further information read this article Valence of feedback (positive vs. negative feedback)

What is the reason of gullibility?

We all know that rumours and allegations are often long-lasting. False insinuations spread via spoken words or facial expressions and gestures persist in the organization for a long time, even if the facts and data refute them. Researchers discovered social and cognitive factors that explain the persistence of rumours and allegations.

These are here summarized:

Cognitive factors

1. Intuition („gut feeling“) through:

  • Little analysis
  • Less analytical thinking

2. Cognitive inaccuracy due to:

  • References to sources are neglected or forgotten
  • Own knowledge is not applied
  • Counter-evidence is neglected  

3. Illusory truth:

  • Familiarity of information
  • Fluency
  • Cohesion with own experience

Social factors

1. Credibility of groups through:

  • Hierarchies (elites)
  • Degree of attraction / attractiveness
  • Own social affiliation

2. World views through

  • personal views
  • Affiliation to a party

3. Emotions

  • One’s own emotional state
  • Information itself is presented emotionally

The whole study can be found under this link: Eckert et al.