David BovisDavid BovisJuly 18, 2019
car-repair-362150_1280-1280x853.jpg

12min814

The author of this article, David Bovis, is a judge at the 2019 UK Business Awards.

 

 

 

 

“We cannot reasonably expect that any one should readily and obsequiously quit his own opinion, and embrace ours with a blind resignation to an authority which the understanding of man acknowledges not. For, however it may often mistake, it can own no other guide but reason, not blindly submit to the will and dictates of another. If he you would bring over to your sentiments be one that examines before he assents, you must give him leave at his leisure to go over the account again, and, recalling what is out of his mind, examine the particulars, to see on which side the advantage lies; and if he will not think over arguments of weight enough to engage him anew in so much pains, it is but what we do often ourselves in the like case; and we should take it amiss if others should prescribe to us what points we should study: and if he be one who wishes to take opinions upon trust, how can we imagine that he should renounce those tenets that time and custom have settled in his mind that he thinks them self-evident, and of an unquestionable certainty…” 

John Locke (1632 – 1704)

“You cannot impose anything on anyone and expect them to be committed to it.”

Edgar Schein, Professor Emeritus, MIT Sloan School

“Those who have a ‘why’ to live can bear with almost any ‘how'” 

Viktor Frankl (1902-1997)

Isn’t it time to take this wisdom, apparent across centuries, and introduce leaders to the biology and psychology that can now deliver the facts to support such observations?

The paradox is this: the neuroscience and psychology at play, which interprets the presence of anything ‘new’ (e.g. language) as a threat (to status, ego, ID), cannot be understood and addressed by those unaware of the principles they themselves are subject to, via their own brains.

In other words, if you don’t understand the transition a human brain goes through in a change environment, you can’t hope to adequately plan, manage, or lead change effectively (i.e. address the barriers to change), in yourself or others.

The bottom line is that this significantly impacts the bottom line.

Change initiatives go over budget, over time, deliver less than expected, and fail to develop internal teams. Knowledge transfer is superficial, based in logic and tools. This doesn’t provide the catalyst for a shift in a leaders beliefs. We look at only a part of a system (process/technology) and fail to re-define ‘good’ when considering a broader system (people/process/technology).

In practice, we see leaders express an interest in knowing more about effective and efficient organisational change, but the pre-conditioned expectation within the market, is that ‘change’ is something done by consultants and teaching tools.

When it’s suggested there might be more to it, which requires a higher level of engagement and understanding, the coping strategy in an already busy, intellectually challenging, politically charged, full-time role – that also challenges the work-life balance of the leader – is denial/avoidance.

The problem with this is that a leader’s brain (despite multiple claims to the contrary) is still an adult-mammalian brain and it doesn’t adapt (form new wiring patterns…i.e. learn) by letting other brains have an experience. It ‘learns/adapts’ in response to it’s own sensory stimulus.

I truly believe it’s time we raise the bar and introduce language into the mainstream which allows us to have informed conversations about ‘change’, where people are recognised as the primary and major part of the ‘complex system of complex systems’.

We can put this subject under any banner – OCM, HR, Leadership, Systems Thinking, or Lean – but the label is less important than the change of action urgently required – globally!

So, how do we break through the psychological barriers that stop leaders assimilating knowledge from current experience to use as justification against the need to know more?

It’s a bit like diagnosing a fault in a car. When the basic mechanics and relationships between the various parts is understood, the driver’s approach toward the driving and maintenance of the vehicle is more likely to change than it is in the case of a driver who cannot comprehend cause and effect throughout the system (including their own attitude and behaviour).

The driver might notice certain quirks of the car – i.e. it won’t start when cold – but if they knew about the viscosity of oil and the drop in capacitance in a battery in lower temperatures, they wouldn’t have to talk in loose terms about the issues, and they could be much more effective in addressing problems.

It’s like that with people – if we can talk about dopamine and the triggers related to its presence (tangible, evidence-based science), we don’t have to talk about ‘motivation’ and ‘engagement’ as if those words in and of themselves are enough to inform corrective action.

So, let’s unpack the car analogy a little.

If a person drives fast and erratically, it might be for any number of reasons. They might be a young man aiming to impress and attract a mate (peacocking), or, the driver might be insecure in themselves and therefore lacking confidence behind the wheel, leading to an inner narrative that reinforces their inadequacy, which manifests in them trying to get the journey – any journey – over as quickly as possible.

Driving whilst fearful/panicking, in response to a low self-concept, can lead to different parts of the brain engaging and reducing the energy available for the parts required to drive well, and diverting glucose energy away from the pre-frontal cortex and executive function, leading to a lower level of awareness and a failure to indicate at roundabouts or perform the mirror-signal manoeuvre.

This is because mirrors and other drivers don’t feature in the mind of someone acting from a position of insecurity/fear.

Now, if that person is one of your drivers (i.e. is in charge of company equipment that has to perform a task as part of a process, like a lathe operator in a factory or computer operator in an office) and your focus is on fuel efficiency, tyre-wear rates, and the amount of brake pads you get through each year (i.e. KPIs), do you address the design of the metaphorical wheels, tyres, engine or fuel?

Do you look at the route the vehicle has to follow? Do you provide the driver a new set of tools to analyse the route or change the tyres and brake pads faster?

Or do you understand the emotional predisposition of the human behind the wheel and what is causing them to respond/act the way they do, and if they will be able to adapt to the presence of the new tools or integrate the principles of those tools into their world view, such that they are able to apply them for a sufficient amount of time to allow their use to become natural?

The popular approach in the market for the last few decades has been focused on the application of Tools and Techniques, keeping Process and Procedure in focus, often in stark contrast to the realities and requirements surrounding the transition people are required to make in an environment in which they perceive change that is imposed upon them.

The populist logical approach just doesn’t address the need to shift an individual’s belief before you can expect a shift in action (behaviour), or the fact the imposition of anything ‘new’ is a primary fear trigger, often resulting in the dreaded ‘resistance to change’ at a cultural level (group think/herd behaviour).

Isn’t it time we stopped driving our companies and people as if they are cars and openly acknowledged the biggest change follows a change in the person behind the wheel?

With significant advances in neuroscience and psychology, it’s now possible to explain every aspect of Locke’s, Shein’s, and Frankel’s observations with science – to move the conversation away from generalisations that only a few come to understand, into hard and fast action for reasons that not only make sense, but translate into top line and bottom line benefit.

Let’s raise the bar and replace the assumption that we can understand things, but everyone else needs it dumbed down; we don’t need issues surrounding ‘transition’ dumbed down…we just need to include them in the conversation.

For too long we’ve been dealing with Process, Procedure, Policy, Strategy (Hoshin), Structure, and Systems as if they are detached from the people expected to adjust to their presence.

It’s always been about people and that means the starting point has to be Brain, Mind, Change, and Culture before we can do a better job of introducing strategic deployment models and tools and techniques.

Lets stop defending the past and move into the future with the language the present provides us.


Nicolle ParadiseNicolle ParadiseMarch 19, 2019
laptop-3196481_1280-1280x853.jpg

9min968

This article by Nicolle Paradise was written in conjunction with Dr Kristin Walle, Division Vice President of Global Money Movement & Compliance/Shared Services Compliance Solutions at ADP.

 

Too sensitive? Just suck it up, buttercup. Too abrasive? Bull in a china shop.

And somewhere in-between these extremes, there’s us: you and me. We’re leaders, we’re employees, and we understand that at the most basic level, those who don’t know what is expected of them seldom perform to their potential. 

Astonishingly, Gallup research suggests that nearly 70 percent of all US employees aren’t working to their full potential in a given business day. 

To communicate what’s expected, is it as binary as: “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all” versus “You Can’t Handle The Truth!” (thanks, Jack Nicholson)? No, we disagree with this positioning and what lies in-between is what we will explore.

We believe leaders have a fundamental responsibility to create value through direct communication. This communication style benefits the Employee Experience and is good for business. Direct communication, defined as the ability to consume, interpret, and mirror back, leaves very little room for interpretation of the employee’s value, their value to the business, and value to customers. This process also subtly communicates the message of “you care about me”, from leader to employee.

With so much to gain then, why do leaders resist direct communication? According to a 2016 study published in Harvard Business Review, “69 percent of managers reported being uncomfortable communicating in general with employees”. If two out of three of leaders are uncomfortable with general communication, we begin to understand just how uncomfortable most leaders would be with direct communication.

To help bridge this communication gap between what makes most of us uncomfortable with what employees need to achieve their full potential, let’s examine a case study between Jack (SVP, Customer Success) and Oliver (VP, Customer Success), a direct report of Jack’s. 

Jack was frustrated with the number of escalations he was receiving from Oliver. He believed he had clearly addressed Oliver’s concerns around how to manage escalations and when that volume did not decrease, but instead the escalations increased, it caused several related outputs:

  • From a leadership perspective, Jack believed that Oliver was choosing to not follow the appropriate direction.
  • Through that lens, Jack interpreted the escalations from employees who were bypassing Oliver as being directly caused by Oliver’s choice to not follow directions.
  • Customers expressed concern at the increased amount of time it was taking to address their issues.

Observing the impact to both employees and customers, Jack decided to confront Oliver as to why he chose to ignore the provided guidance.

Oliver, however, was confused and himself, frustrated. He was a proven, competent VP within the organisation and asked his manager, Jack: “What specifically are you asking me to do differently? I thought I was following your exact direction this entire time.”

Why did this stark miscommunication happen? To answer that, we leveraged an Ishikawa diagram to uncover the potential cause and effect.

We first identified what specific areas, either internal (e.g: ‘personality’) or external (‘HR policies’) may be perceived obstacles. Then within each category we identified several potential reasons ( e.g: ‘I prefer…’) why this prevented the desired outcomes.

This diagram helped Jack get to the root cause of the disconnect. Jack, unintentionally, had concluded the root cause of the escalations solely through his own perceptions, not via direct communication with Oliver. By broadening his perspective and asking direct questions of Oliver, Jack was then able to provide clear, consumable feedback related to Oliver’s performance, goals, and associated metrics. This renewed clarity of communication benefited Oliver, Oliver’s team, and ultimately, the 10,000 customers that the organisation supports.

This diagram also helped Oliver contemplate his own obstacles. He realised that his assumptions prevented him from asking specific, clarifying questions to Jack. Understanding that Jack may not be skilled or may have his own bias around the interaction, Oliver learned to probe and paraphrase back to Jack in a manner so that clarity was achieved. 

Several iterations of the diagram are commonly needed to yield the desired clarity, so patience from both leaders and employees is needed until the skills have been developed. 

Additionally, we recommend the organisation ask itself a few proactive questions with a focus toward driving direct communication:

  1. How are we ensuring that the root cause issue is actually the root cause?
  2. What is the result we are looking for as an organisation?  Why it this important and how is it measured? 
  3. How does this connect to the overall organisational benefits? 

This feedback loop – comprised of the above proactive questions and the Ishikawa diagram analysis – position organisations to communicate directly regarding behaviours that contribute to achieving specific goals as well as identify which behaviours contribute to creating obstacles. From a communication perspective, this feedback loop helps balance the extremes of “too sensitive: suck it up, buttercup” and “too abrasive: bull in a china shop”.

Today’s leaders are investing in the leaders of tomorrow, ultimately yielding a richer and more developed employee, an improved experience, and thus higher employee retention rates. The stability that this feedback loop provides an organisation has a direct, positive impact on development, collaboration and creativity, delivering value for both employees and customers.

When we know what is expected of us, we can perform to our full potential. How might leveraging this feedback loop help your team reach their full potential?




Inform. Inspire. Include.
A free way to improve your business.

Customer Experience Magazine is the online magazine packed full of industry news, blogs, features, reports, case studies, video bites and international stories all focusing on customer experience.


CONTACT US

CALL US ANYTIME



Contact Information

For article submissions:
Editor
Paul Ainsworth
editorial@cxm.co.uk

For general inquiries, advertising and partnership information:
advertising@cxm.co.uk
Tel: 0207 1932 428

For Masterclass enquiries:
antonija@cxm.co.uk
Tel: 0207 1937 483

Awards International ltd
Acacia Farm, Lower Road,
Royston, Herts, SG8 0EE
Company number: 6707388

JOBS IN CUSTOMER SUPPORT

Find a job in customer support with Jobsora


Newsletter