I'm prompted to post this by someone (another coach) saying that one of the key techniques to learn in politics is "limiting disclosure". I understand why they would say that - it seems very sensible - but I want to explain why I don't think it is very helpful. I'm picking up a theme of previous posts about politics that often the real issue is getting people to engage in politics at all. And that is about managing negative assumptions and an unhelpful mindset about politics, ie managing the (emotional) limbic brain not the rational neo-cortex.
I find that for many executives I coach, their mindset means the real issue is not disclosing enough. For example, they want a promotion, but don't disclose this to anyone - least of all anyone who could help them get it! Or they talk a lot about what "should" happen in the business, ie the speak their mind openly, but they say little about their true concerns, ie they say nothing from the heart. From the outside they look closed and self-serving - just like the "Foxes" they accuse others of being (see earlier post for the "political animals" model).
I've also reflected on the neurobiological impact of focusing on "limiting disclosure". Focusing on not doing something because it is dangerous represents a threat at the limbic level. The limbic response (which is quite unconscious) will both cause withdrawal, re-inforcing the mindset of "I don't want to play the political game", and will also literally reduce your ability to think creatively (using your Pre-Frontal Cortex) about what to do. Actions will be habitual rather than creative. And the habit is not to act politically!
A better focus, which addresses both these drawbacks, is "intentional disclosure". This is a positive (attractive) word so avoids the negative limbic response. It also encourages positive action to disclose, and to disclose the right things. Perfect!
Showing posts with label 1.4 Systems thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1.4 Systems thinking. Show all posts
Change your role, change your script
For various reasons, Barry Oshry's ideas on systems dynamics (for details see the main website) have kept popping into my head in the last few days, as an alternative way of understanding what is going on and so generating new alternatives for action in response. He talks about the idea of roles in the system and how predictably we normally play out our roles - as if following a script.
For example, on a recent programme, we had struggled to get the group to take the initiative, to extend themselves or even to challenge each other to the level we'd normally expect. On reflection, it occurred to me that this wasn't just about their individual personalities - this was characteristic behaviour for a group of "oppressed bottoms". That opened up a whole new set of questions about why a group of senior people would unconsciously see themselves in this way, and what would help them change their role and hence their script.
Another role I saw in this case was that of the "self-righteously pissed off" client. That's where you can see something may is not going right, so you distance yourself from it so as to be clear that if it goes wrong it is entirely the other party's fault. The alternative script is to take the risk of getting involved to produce the outcome you want, even though this blurs the lines of responsibility for blame.
Interestingly, this latter dynamic (ie being self-righteously pissed off) seems to pop up in one to one relationships as much as in systems. Or is that just me! I find it can really help sometimes to notice how much energy I am putting into making it clear that a bad relationship is "their fault, not mine", rather than investing that energy in trying to produce the good relationship I want.
For example, on a recent programme, we had struggled to get the group to take the initiative, to extend themselves or even to challenge each other to the level we'd normally expect. On reflection, it occurred to me that this wasn't just about their individual personalities - this was characteristic behaviour for a group of "oppressed bottoms". That opened up a whole new set of questions about why a group of senior people would unconsciously see themselves in this way, and what would help them change their role and hence their script.
Another role I saw in this case was that of the "self-righteously pissed off" client. That's where you can see something may is not going right, so you distance yourself from it so as to be clear that if it goes wrong it is entirely the other party's fault. The alternative script is to take the risk of getting involved to produce the outcome you want, even though this blurs the lines of responsibility for blame.
Interestingly, this latter dynamic (ie being self-righteously pissed off) seems to pop up in one to one relationships as much as in systems. Or is that just me! I find it can really help sometimes to notice how much energy I am putting into making it clear that a bad relationship is "their fault, not mine", rather than investing that energy in trying to produce the good relationship I want.
Two political re-frames
I know my last post was about politics but hey, it's a fascinating subject! What has prompted me this time is not my programme work on politics, nor even a coaching conversation, but a real-life discussion with a colleague about a political situation they are dealing with. What it reminded me is that as well as the experiential / metaphorical work I do on politics, there is real value in some simple re-frames I use, which work at the cognitive level to change our attitudes and hence behaviour. I want to share a couple with you.
My favourite is just to replace the word POLITICS with the word INFLUENCE (because that is what it is really about). Immediately, it is easier to see politics as something neutral that can be used with good or bad intent - so not a dirty word, or something you only pay attention to when you are suffering a setback. It is also much more difficult to hold the attitude of "I hate politics" or "I don't do politics". Because if you say "I don't do influence" the response is obvious, ie "Really? And you hope to lead?!"
Another reframe is to recognise that politics is something you do BEFORE you decide the way forward, not AFTER. So it is NOT just about manipulating others to support what you have already decided. Sensing out who is influential, what they would support and what they would oppose, what are the bigger agendas or the conflicting agendas etc, are all things you need to do before you commit yourself. Without doing this you are missing essential data that you need to make a good decision.
I could go on... but then I'd give away all my re-frames in one post! Anyone out there got some more they want to contribute first?
My favourite is just to replace the word POLITICS with the word INFLUENCE (because that is what it is really about). Immediately, it is easier to see politics as something neutral that can be used with good or bad intent - so not a dirty word, or something you only pay attention to when you are suffering a setback. It is also much more difficult to hold the attitude of "I hate politics" or "I don't do politics". Because if you say "I don't do influence" the response is obvious, ie "Really? And you hope to lead?!"
Another reframe is to recognise that politics is something you do BEFORE you decide the way forward, not AFTER. So it is NOT just about manipulating others to support what you have already decided. Sensing out who is influential, what they would support and what they would oppose, what are the bigger agendas or the conflicting agendas etc, are all things you need to do before you commit yourself. Without doing this you are missing essential data that you need to make a good decision.
I could go on... but then I'd give away all my re-frames in one post! Anyone out there got some more they want to contribute first?
Where do you stand on the political map?
Last week I ran a session on organisational politics for a group of senior account executives seeking to position themselves as strategic trusted advisors to their clients. I based it on a model of political types from Professor Kim James at Cranfield School of Management.
The model uses two dimensions (one about political skills, the other about how they are deployed) to create four types, one in each quadrant. These are the Wise Owl, the Clever Fox, the Innocent Lamb, and the Clumsy Bull. (NB The original model used a Stupid Ass, but I have found the Clumsy Bull works better in my work.) Just introducing this model gives people a helpful language to explore their attitudes about themselves and others in the political game.
However, when this work really comes alive is when we start to explore what happens when you put people into each quadrant. It turns out it's another example of the "what you see is what you get" effect (see earlier blog post). Even more interesting is that your own stance with others changes depending on how you are seeing them, and that you can also change your stance more consciously if you deliberately use the metaphor (eg deliberately decide to take your stance in the Wise Owl quadrant).
Since engaging in politics is often about managing negative assumptions and an unhelpful mindset, ie managing your emotional limbic brain not your rational neo-cortex, I find the approach of using visual and physical metaphor incredibly powerful in effecting real shifts.
The model uses two dimensions (one about political skills, the other about how they are deployed) to create four types, one in each quadrant. These are the Wise Owl, the Clever Fox, the Innocent Lamb, and the Clumsy Bull. (NB The original model used a Stupid Ass, but I have found the Clumsy Bull works better in my work.) Just introducing this model gives people a helpful language to explore their attitudes about themselves and others in the political game.
However, when this work really comes alive is when we start to explore what happens when you put people into each quadrant. It turns out it's another example of the "what you see is what you get" effect (see earlier blog post). Even more interesting is that your own stance with others changes depending on how you are seeing them, and that you can also change your stance more consciously if you deliberately use the metaphor (eg deliberately decide to take your stance in the Wise Owl quadrant).
Since engaging in politics is often about managing negative assumptions and an unhelpful mindset, ie managing your emotional limbic brain not your rational neo-cortex, I find the approach of using visual and physical metaphor incredibly powerful in effecting real shifts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)