|
|
Joe’s performance has gone from the top of the division to the bottom in just six months. Despite several heart to heart conversations between Joe and his boss, and repeated commitments by Joe to sort things out, the slide continues. It looked to Joe’s boss like Joe just couldn’t or wouldn’t make the necessary changes. In desperation, Joe’s boss asked Redline Advisors to provide some executive coaching with the aim to give Joe some dedicated assistance in turning the situation around.
In my initial interviews with Joe, he gave the genuine impression that he had heard his manager’s concerns and could recognize that he had some challenges. He expressed a sincere interest in getting back on track. Joe was obviously frustrated that he couldn’t seem to get his momentum back. He had spent a lot of time thinking about his situation and what he could do to improve, but he wasn’t able to figure out the root cause of his dilemma.
At Redline, we focus on researching ideas, concepts and techniques that are emerging in a variety of diverse fields related to organizational and human performance. About 5 years ago, Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey, researchers in developmental psychology at
Harvard
University
, started to apply years of research into cognitive development within the field of Adult Learning to organizational settings. In their research they focused on how people – as individuals and groups – make meaning of the world around them. Looking to apply their research to real world problems, they became intrigued by what was going on with people who were faced with having to change and why it was so often observed that smart, skilled and deeply committed people in organizations could demonstrate so much apparent fear, denial, subversiveness and defensiveness – so much resistance to change – to a new position or course of action that could clearly be of benefit to them for having made the effort.
What they found was that there was really no “dark side of people” at play here – no subversiveness or even real resistance. Instead, what they found was that people described as being resistant to change weren’t resistant at all, but they were actually caught in a competing commitment – a subconscious, hidden goal that conflicts with their stated commitments to undergo the necessary change.
Now this probably sounds like that soft mushy voodoo of psychology – but like it or not, as managers we have to go there to be effective in our roles. Kegan and Lahey found that there is a simple coaching method that can be devised to help people break through their apparent immunity to change. In just a few hours of coaching, any manager can apply this coaching process and get to the bottom of what’s really going on when people who seem genuinely committed to change dig in their heels and reject it.
The process contains four critical steps to identifying and solving employee’s challenges.
Step 1: Diagnose the Competing Commitment by Asking Some Probing Questions:
“What would you like to see changed at work, so you could be more effective, or so work would be more satisfying?” In Joe’s case, he told me he felt he had been an over-achiever for the benefit of the company for a long time now, and that he felt he had a right to be an average achiever just like everybody else. He complained that his boss and the company just wanted more and more.
“What commitment does your complaint imply?” Complaints indicate what people care about most. Joe told me he wanted to be in control of himself and his life especially now that he had a new wife and child.
“What are you doing, or not doing, to keep your commitment from being more fully realized?” Joe said he was getting a lot of pressure from his wife, who was also a professional with an active and demanding career, to take on more of the duties of parent and home. Unfortunately, he wasn’t being assertive or open enough with his wife to have the level of conversation with her that would establish the distribution of duties that could ultimately accommodate both of their needs. Joe confided that to avoid this conversation and any unpleasantness that it might contain he was trying to do everything at home at the expense of his job.
“Imagine doing the opposite of the undermining behavior. Do you feel any discomfort, worry, or vague fear?” When Joe thought about that open and frank conversation and the inevitable conflicts it would entail, he said “I am afraid I will hear my wife demand of me to choose between my career and my family
“By engaging in this undermining behavior, what worrisome outcome are you committed to preventing?” Joe’s response was “I’m committed to avoiding conflict with my wife at any cost to myself, my needs, or my job”.
Step 2: Identify the Big Assumption
This is the view that colors everything we see and that generates our competing commitment – it is the filter we use to examine our reality and make meaning of it. People often form big assumptions early in life and then seldom, if ever, examine them. They’ve woven it into the very fabric of their lives. Only by bringing them into the light can people finally challenge their deepest beliefs and recognize why they‘re engaging in seemingly contradictory behavior.
To identify the big assumption, guide an employee through this exercise:
“Create a sentence stem that inverts the competing commitment, then, fill in the blank.” Joe turned his competing commitment to avoiding conflict with his wife at any cost into this big assumption: “I assume that if I did have a conflict with my wife about our priorities and needs between family and work, she would force me to chose between a family I love and a job I love – an either or position – when what I really want is to be successful doing both.”
Step 3: Question the Big Assumption
Help the employee observe or analyze himself in the context of his big assumption – but without yet changing his thinking or behavior. Ask questions like:
“What does and doesn’t happen because you believe the big assumption is true?” Joe thought about this quite intensely and came back with his analysis. “I don’t confront this issue because I am deeply afraid that the conversation would damage our relationship. I find it is better to just go along to get along.”
“What would cause you to question the validity of the big assumption?” Joe said “I am failing at both my parenting and my job – I am feeling resentment towards my wife and child and I’m feeling like I am letting my boss and myself down at work – nobody is getting my best.”
“How and when did the big assumption develop?” Joe and I spent several hours exploring this question and Joe danced around directly answering for quite a while until he just suddenly burst out his answer. “ It all goes back to my relationship with my first wife. It was early in my career and I was a rising star. Long hours, sacrificed evenings and weekends, days and weeks on the road. I did my best to try and keep a balance. I used to sit and talk about my work and we seemed to have an open and frank relationship that allowed us to talk about our needs and concerns. My first wife told me she understood that I needed to put in the time and effort and that she was ok with me being away so much. But one week I came home from a trip to
Calgary
to find an empty house and a note on the counter saying my wife had found somebody else who didn’t travel and had the time to spend with her. I was hurt and I was angry. I never want that to happen to me again.”
Step 4: Test – and Consider Replacing – the Big Assumption
By analyzing the circumstances leading up to and reinforcing their big assumptions, employees empower themselves to test those assumptions. They can now carefully and safely experiment with behaving differently than they usually do. After running several such tests, employees may feel ready to reevaluate the big assumption itself – and possibly even replace it with a new worldview that more accurately reflects their abilities. At the very least, they will eventually find more effective ways to support their competing commitments – a win-win for the company and the employee.
We worked with Joe and his wife and with Joe and his boss by facilitating some of the more difficult conversations necessary to get Joe in balance. He found that his new wife was very different than his first wife – she was truthful and caring. Together, they established the frankness in their conversations to work out a mutually satisfying division of the family and parenting duties and for deciding together the level of commitment they both needed to make to their jobs. They hired a nanny to help achieve the balance they both needed in work and family. Joe talked to his boss and they worked out was for Joe to work from a home based office so that he had more time with his new child, and could commit to the travel to keep his relationships with his customers without feeling like he was neglecting his family. Joe feels balanced. He’s productive at work and effective as a parent and husband at home. This didn’t happen overnight, but in 3 quarters, Joe was back as the top performer in his division.
Reference:
“The Real Reason People Won’t Change”, Harvard Business Review article, Kegan and Lahey, November 2001.
|
|
