Replying to LO28976 --
Thank you to everyone who has responded so far.
At rightly asks me to work out what the "principal causes" are and to
avoid using quick fixes, such as a checklist. This is good advice - thank
you At.
The syndrome is a studied and persistent disengagement from even
elementary rubrics for identifying with the workplace.
It is very tempting to see the "studied helplessness" as a grand play of
the meta game described in the Transactional Analysis literature:
Persecutor - Victim; P switches to Rescuer; V switches to P etc etc. But
in a posting in this group in the week before last Christmas, I got the
glimmer of a more systems-based clue. (I haven't kept the email and my
downloadings from the referenced website are in storage 2 weeks away) It
was the story of a similar pattern of disengagement from the immediate
imperatives and norms of a workplace for computer software writers. I
made the connection - in both cases, the workers have the direct and
pre-emptive relationship with and ownership of the means of production -
their own knowledge base and expertise.
At that time, a number of committees subordinate to my Board of Management
were reflecting this syndrome. The Board of Management at the time had
construed the behaviours in the subordinate committees exclusively in
Transactional Analysis terms. I persuaded them to drop this
(pejorative)diagnostic and to try the more systems-based approach. They
did.
Using the insights from that website, we dealt with that problem by first
introducing some firm (if arbitrary) discipline into the workplace and
then investing heavily in task and activity related training - actually,
to date, we are just up to introducing a very tightly scripted methodology
for doing their particular business - the training is coming.
The key issue within the Board today constellates, I am hypothesising,
around this same hazard. It is about the Board itself as a cohesive
workforce. The pattern I have recently seen is that, at both extremes (of
being under stress and in the absence of stress), Board members seem to
'collapse' into a recognisable default mode of being a collection of
extreme free-standing individuals who very much keep their own counsel and
behave as though disengaged from the behavioural norms for the collective
action needed to function as a Board.
A Board of Management is to produce good governance. There are many
aspects to this charter, for example: assuming prime responsibility for
and carriage of strategic planning; setting stable, well documented and
consistently applied values; and so on. But the weakest link in this role
for my present circumstances is to be found in the function of 'due
diligence'. Due Diligence is an obligation for a Board to reach its own
self-appropriation (including a thorough Risk Analysis, resulting in
proper Risk Management) of the relative merits of any input made to it
from anyone, including one of its own members - any plan, proposal,
analysis, review, opinion and policy. At the very least, no input to
Board proceedings (be it an official Business Paper from me or a Board
member's own testimony about something) should remain undebated and
un-discussed.
The focus of group performance collapses to a rubric of 'consultation' -
there's nothing wrong with that but, while all forms of due diligence
incorporate good consultation, not all instances of consultation
necessarily reflect any trace of due diligence. And here, they haven't.
Further, in my perception, it is not Due Diligence as such which has
lapsed but its constituent element - 'discussing issues'. Exhortations to
'discuss - damn-it; discuss' fall on deaf ears and are deflected under
debating points such as - 'you have to give us the training for that'.
Some gestures of rescue are needed, along with a campaign to raise
consciousness on the issue so that adequate performance on Due Diligence
becomes a more salient performance standard, internalised by the
individual Board members.
Hence - I am in the market for a checklist on how to discuss something.
What is taking shape so far looks like the following five phase map:
(1) The Opening Phase: this cannot necessarily be controlled from the
start by a Board, since a matter may be input "any old how", and many will
be. After all, sometimes it may be better 'to get it out any old how,
than not at all', but it's what the Board as a whole then does with it
that matters.
(2) The Group Understanding and Development Phase: It is in this Phase
that discussion and Due Diligence either get a chance to emerge and occur,
or not. The appropriate 'script' needs to be selected and applied, as
between discussions about:
(a) Advocacy (e.g. I want this policy adopted)
(b) Inquiry (e.g. What does this mean; what is their policy; what are
their interests?)
(c) Feedback (giving or receiving; positive or negative).
This Second Phase, in whatever script mode, is characterised by a lot of
inter-action between everyone in the group - listening; summarising;
asking questions; and so on.
(3) The Assertive Phase: The Board re-expresses, as necessary, the
matter that has just been understood in an assertive version and format.
For example, if the issue is a complaint (giving negative feedback), the
complainant needs in this third phase to express what he or she positively
wants to see in place and happening.) Here, it may be necessary for the
players "to find the Adult within" (to use pop psych jargon from the
1980's) - they have to get out of angry and accusatory mode.
(4) The Assumptions Phase: Find the assumptions behind the way the
matter is being pitched, and find any competing assumptions.
(5) The Negotiation Phase: Any conflict between competing assumptions
is reviewed and a WIN/WIN resolution is negotiated.
My lot are not getting past the first phase!
A checklist like this (as more fully elaborated), could serve as a
fallback when circumstances are not kind to the natural flowering of
proper discourse. The checklist would provide the kind of "better
disciplining" of the workplace that is needed, when it is at risk of
disengagement from its present realities and imperatives.
>From the suggestions here I will draw heavily on the references to the
Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, which amazingly I haven't previously come
across. I've also been impressed with a recent publication: R. Kegan & LL
Lahey "How the way we talk can change the way we work: Seven languages for
Transformation". I liked the reminder about de Bono but that stuff is
taught in Australian primary schools (and in secondary schools to slow
learners), and some of my lot would be aware of that!
So - what does this look like so far - what's the next improvement?
Thanks
Jim Marshall
Brisbane, Australia
--=?iso-8859-1?q?Jim=20Marshall?= <marshall_jim@yahoo.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.