How can your team deal with complex challenges ?

Most of the challenges facing leaders today are complex. Dave Snowden’s Cynefin model separates the types of situations leaders are confronted with into simple, complicated, complex and chaos, and indicates how each should be dealt with differently (HBR November 2007). A complex challenge requires leaders to probe, sense and respond. How can this model be applied to a team ?

When teams are invited to solve a problem or find solutions for a challenge, they nearly always intuitively move into solution mode very quickly. Each will mentally assess the situation, categorize or analyze the facts and then share which solution is the best and why this is so. “I think we should do this because I used to …”. Experts often save the day. Brainstorming helps to share as many ideas as possible in a short period of time so the team can respond quickly to the issue. Advocating solutions, expert input, brainstorming or sharing best practices works for simple or complicated problems where the Cynefin model prescribes the steps of sense, categorize, respond, and sense, analyze, respond respectively. Simple and complicated problems are prevalent in an “ordered” world where actions have predictable results. Approaching complex problems in the same way leads to half-optimized solutions at best and a team stuck in disagreement at worst; it is often up to the leader to decide what to do. So much for the team’s contribution !

How can a team work through the steps of probing, sensing and responding and tackle complex problems efficiently ?

That’s exactly what Action Learning does. Action Learning is a problem solving process where a small team works on a real and complex business challenge, takes action and learns as individuals and as a team while doing so. Rather than jumping into solution-mode, the ground rule “statements are only made in response to questions” helps the team focus first on what the real issue or challenge is. Perceptions and assumptions are put aside as the team asks questions about the different aspect of the problem. This corresponds to the probing step in the Cynefin model.

Based on the discussion and exchanges in the Action Learning session, each team member will decide what actions to take after the session. They can take action to test out an idea, confirm an assumption or talk to people to collect more information. This is the sensing step in the Cynefin model.

When the team reconvenes to continue their work on the challenge, each will share the result of their actions and what they learned from them. The team will take in this new information about the challenge, and continue to work on shaping the understanding of the situation through questions. This is the responding step in the model. 

For a leader, the Cynefin model describes how to deal with a complex challenge. When this leader wants to empower the team to learn, develop and come up with new ideas, the Action Learning process provides a clear structure and rules to avoid the pitfall of tackling complex challenges through the ubiquitous brainstorming-like “let’s find the solution” approach.

the Action Learning Iceberg

How does your team react when you tell them there will be a team building or leadership session next month ? A session where they will learn how to communicate better, give better feedback, increase collaboration. Or build trust.
Some will pump their fists: "Yeah, a day away from the office !". Others will roll their eyes and think how to minimize the impact on their already heavy workload. In a few cases, someone will report a work emergency the morning of the session.
During the session, people are often distracted (phone, email, or other apps) by urgencies coming from their "real work". The session feels optional and work priorities need to be dealt with.

At the end of the session, reactions will vary from "That was fun. Now let's get back to work." at best to "What a waste of time." at worst. Time and money gone. Motivation, teamwork and collaboration enjoy a temporary blip, if at all.

Action Learning turns things upside down. Leadership and team development cannot happen disconnected from daily priorities. We bring a team together to work on a burning issue, a complex problem that impacts the whole organization. Top management gives the team the authority to work on this challenge, propose solutions and implement ideas. A number of sessions happen over 3 months or so, and the team takes actions between the sessions to collect information, test out ideas and validate assumptions. If we were to stop here, this would just be an enhanced form of project work or problem-solving.

The Action Learning coach looks at the part of the iceberg under the water. The coach observes the team dynamics and identifies learning moments - not teaching moments. Learning is anchored in the observable interactions between team members. The coach brings these dynamics to the team's awareness and invites team members to discuss what works well, what can be better and how the team wants to develop the dynamics further. There is no theory or 'here's what you should do' guidelines. The team is the context from which learning is created. From one intervention to another, and from one session to the next, the team and the individual members grow. Almost literally. Growing means taking the current situation as the reality and moving up one step. And then another.

The coach has a double role. Of course the team needs to be able to present their solutions for the business challenge to the top management at the end of the sessions. At the same time, the coach ensures that each individual, as well as the team as a whole, increases self-awareness, and takes steps to become better individuals and members of the team. I sometimes say that the business challenge the team works on is the excuse through which to bring in personal and team development.

Looking for real development in your individuals and teams ? Take a look at Action Learning www.wial.org.

When the cat's away ...

What happens to your team when you are not around ? My experience with different teams in Asia is not so much that people will start to play or muck around. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Rather than getting together and doing all the stuff you maybe do not allow when you are around, most of the time, when the cat is away, the mice will go in hibernation !

That "team" that you often think of as the group of your direct reports will more or less fall back to its components. The HR manager will go and focus on the HR stuff and the marketing person will quietly keep on working on the marketing assignment you handed out. The team ceases to exist.

When an issue comes up where collaboration or joint action is needed, and when you are not around, does your team huddle together, come up with solutions and decide on the best way forward ? Or do they get lost in arguments and turf wars ? Or - and I think this is what happens most often - is the issue put on the 'pending' list until your return. Whichever of these two extremes, it seems that anything but routine work gets done when you are not around.

What is the solution ? You cannot expect a team to grow by itself if you are involved in every decision. Step back ... even when you are around, and refrain from intervening while at the same time asking for progress to be made. In fact, if the mice start playing when you are not around, that would be a pretty good sign. If however they go into a comatose state, you need to reflect on how you can change the way you work to start building a real team !

About questions and onions !

When a team experiences Action Learning through a first discovery session, the questions they ask can be a bit haphazard. It sometimes feels like there is a competition for asking as many questions as possible. This can frustrate the problem presenter who might think that this “great new tool” that would help with the problem feels more like an inquisition ! And indeed, not all questions are created equal. Team members are aware during the session what questions are really powerful and helped the problem presenter, and which ones were not really helping that much. So after debriefing about what they learned, they sometimes ask me “But how should we ask more of these great questions ?”.

I prefer to avoid any attempt to “teach” which questions are great and which questions are average. After all, it is the person who receives the question who determines whether that question helped to open up new thoughts, or whether it felt more like a burden to answer. There is no such thing as “the one great question” that works in any situation !

It is not really a matter of great questions versus average ones, but more about the extent to which the questions help the problem presenter think. I use the metaphor of an onion (see the picture) before we start the session. I explain that there is no harm in asking the questions that are at the level of the outer peel of the onion. When exploring a new issue, team members need to get basic information. These questions are useful for the team members to start to know about the problem, but they will not really help the problem presenter develop new ideas. For new ideas to be explored, team members need to try and move “towards the center of the onion”.

The team typically gets this concept very well. In a recent session, I asked the team what they thought about the kind of questions that were asked. One team member replied “We are asking questions at peel of the onion !”. The team immediately picked this up and confirmed that they would have to try and move to the center of the onion if they wanted to help the problem presenter. A similar intervention when I feel a team is asking rather superficial questions is “Team, from the questions we have been asking so far, have you seen the problem presenter having to think a lot or not ?”. The metaphor of the onion comes up almost immediately.

Avoid to teach what a great question looks like. Invite the team to think about questions that help the problem presenter … think !

Changing others ...

In the team sessions I run, participants share management challenges and learn from each other through a questioning process. 100% of the challenges are about someone who is not in the room. The difficult colleague. The demanding boss. A team member who is not doing what is asked. Or another who is talking behind your back. The context and specifics are different, but it is always about them. And how to change them.

The presenter explains to the colleagues in the team session all he has tried, all the tricks in his management tool kit that have been tested. And how all these attempts were not successful and how the issue is still there. Once the explanations about the situation are complete, the presenter eagerly listens to what the colleagues will come up with, in the hope they will have a magic trick in the tool box that is brand new and untested and will be the secret to dealing with this management challenge. Alas, after a few minutes, the discussion often turns into "I have tried that too and it doesn't work" or "This solution is not possible in this case because ...".

The exchange quickly grows stale when the focus is solely on what other or innovative tricks exist to change the other person's (peer, boss, team member) behavior. The real insight comes when the presenter realizes that he or she can only change his or her own behavior ... and then see what impact that has on the other person. This seems pretty basic for some but it is only when this awareness has grown that the presenter can come up with real steps of what he can do himself to deal with the challenge.

What insight looks like

One key objective of an Action Learning session is to help a colleague get a better understanding of his or her problem. A better understanding leads to better solutions ! Asking questions helps a leader explore possibilities he or she had not thought of before. This takes time, and simply telling someone what should be done does not work. To come to a genuine insight, our brain requires questions and explorations.

We often ask team members to write out in a full sentence their understanding of the underlying problem. Sometimes, the leader sharing the problem insists that he understands the problem very well, and that there is not really a need to write it out.  Yet the different rounds of asking questions to one another and evaluating different perspectives can sometimes lead to real insights. When the "light bulb is switched on" leaders immediately see their challenge - and the solutions - in a whole different way.

Here are two examples from actual sessions.

The leader's understanding of the problem at the start of the session:
"How can I improve the employee engagement score related to the department's leadership ?"

The leader's insight of the problem at the end of the session:
"How can I develop trust between myself and my leadership team ?"

And the second one ...

At the start:
"How can I improve the relationships between myself and the team ?"

and at the end:
"How can I control my emotional reactions to minimize the impact on the team ?"

Maybe it is time for you to take a fresh look and the challenges you are facing ?

Meetings that work !

I was lucky to be able to deliver the first public workshop on Action Learning in Vietnam last week. At the end of the session, all participants confirmed they really saw the value of the approach and they would apply it in their organizations. As a facilitator, it feels good to get this kind of feedback but I am also aware that very often, reality (with deadlines, emails, presentations to do ...) sucks us up very quickly.

So I was really excited to receive an email from one of the participants of the Vietnam branch of a global FMCG company sharing his very first - and innovative - application of the principles of Action Learning !

His sales team had scheduled the annual Joint Business Meeting with a key customer the day after the workshop. In the past, this Business Meeting was a full day of Powerpoints where each team shared their views, their objectives, results and challenges. And the hours were spent in discussing, explaining, debating, resulting in some agreements and some disagreements. Pretty much a long day for everybody involved, with hours of time spent up front to create the Powerpoint slides.

So my participant, in charge of the sales team for the global FMCG in Vietnam, decided to try and apply the principles of Action Learning in this annual Joint Business Meeting. Out with the laptops, and out with the Powerpoints. The sales manager adapted the standard WIAL Action Learning script to fit his need for this meeting, maintaining the core ground rule of "Statements are only made in response to questions". Participants asked questions to one another to dive into the challenges their respective businesses were facing. Quite a difference from stating your point and trying to convince the other side yours is the right view. Both teams followed the Action Learning approach and achieved a high level of consensus on the key challenges they faced. At the end of the meeting, next steps were jointly identified to work towards and solve the challenges. Participants rated the session 8.5 out of 10 !

Next step: do the same with 2 other major customer teams.

Now that's what I call Action Learning ... in action !

Innovation by deletion

I recently came across an interesting idea in the Dialogue magazine from Duke EC. It is simple yet we often do not think about innovation in this way. Full credit to the author Lisa Bodell.

When we think of innovation or read about it, the focus is nearly always about doing something new, creative, different, something nobody else has thought about. But the authors of this article turn things upside down: very often, innovation can be (indirectly) increased by STOPPING to do stupid things that take up time and energy. They call this the Kill A Stupid Rule tool. I think this is especially true in large organizations.

So here is the approach. Bring your team, department, division together and have them brainstorm or think about "stupid things we do". Stupid rules. Stupid reports, meetings or practices. Stupid processes that were put in place at some point by somebody, but where nobody remembers the purpose or benefit. There are no limits to what can be brought up. Anybody who thinks there is something stupid going on can list this as something the team should consider.

The team will then organize all these "stupid ideas" in the traditional 2x2 matrix, along the axes of "easy versus difficult to implement" and "low or high impact on the organization". The obvious priority is to focus on the quadrant with the easy to remove/high impact topics. The team can vote to pick one stupid rule they all agree to kill right here and now, and evaluate the following weeks that canceling this rule is indeed  feasible.

Asking teams to do something new, something innovative on top of everything else that fills their working days is often a challenge. Change in this direction is hard. But the opposite can be very liberating and invigorating. Removing a "stupid" rule or process or way of doing things can free up time, energy and focus ... and open the possibilities for innovation. It empowers team members to be able to redesign the way they do their current work.

Is Action Learning the secret key to self-management ?

In Reinventing Organizations, Frederic Laloux describes the way Buurtzorg (Netherlands, nursing home care, total 7000 employees) functions on the basis of self-managed teams of 10-12 nurses. On page 70, the author lists the key principles around which teams in Buurtzorg are organized:

- it's okay for tams to struggle: from struggle comes learning, and teams that have gone through difficult moments build resilience and a deep sense of community;

- the coach's role is to let teams make their own choices, even if she believes she knows a better solution;

- the coach supports the team mostly by asking insightful questions and mirroring what she sees;

- the starting point is always to look for enthusiasm, strengths and existing capabilities within the team; the coach projects trust that the team has all it takes to solve the problems it faces.

Anyone who has ever participated in an Action Learning set immediately recognizes these principles: this is exactly what develops when a team embraces Action Learning as a way to collaboratively solve problems. Asking questions to one another creates powerful connections. Team members take actions and share the results and their learning with their peers. The team learns and moves from strength to strength. Engagement and ownership is guaranteed when teams can create and put in place their own solutions.  

Buurtzorg is a fascinating organization: there are no managers, no quality departments, no central structures. Teams of nurses manage everything related to their profession. And the results are extraordinary. 

Leaders often feel the need to thoroughly change their organization's culture (the way things are done), but are not sure about how to get started. You cannot dictate a culture change and we all know the probability of a corporate change initiative being successful ! Getting teams to use Action Learning to solve their own problems is definitely a solid start.

Why brainstorming won't get your team out of the box

Brainstorming is a very popular tool to address a problem or challenge with a team. The logic is that the ideas of a handful of people will be more creative or powerful than those of an individual. No issue here. In a brainstorming session, each participant takes turns to come up with an idea, and all are listed on a flipchart, without evaluating, judging or even reacting. The long list of ideas is then reduced, ideas are voted on, or combined.

Brainstorming is very intense. Energy is high. Participants think hard to come up with a brilliant idea waiting their turn ... and hoping that nobody else will have the same idea ! Nothing worse in a brainstorming session than to have your neighbor steal the idea you were about to share !

Neuroscience has demonstrated the limits of brainstorming when it comes to finding real breakthrough ideas. Because of the high level of energy and the dynamics of a brainstorming session, participants come up with those ideas or solutions that require the least thinking effort. The brain is forced to work hard: while others shout their ideas, the brain works overtime to come up with something - anything - by the time it's its turn. After a second of relaxation once the idea has been added to the list, it's back to thinking hard to come up with something - again, anything - before the next turn.

Research by David Rock (Mr. Neuroleadership) has shown that forcing the brain to think under time pressure does not mean great ideas will pop out. It is quite the opposite. Real breakthrough ideas occur when the brain is at rest. When some question or riddle jumps around in our unconscious brain, the weaker connections between neurons are activated: those are the things we know but we don't use them routinely. And that's where new solutions are found. So David Rock recommends the following process. When you are faced with a really complex challenge, spend some time with your team to agree on what the key question is the team should answer in order to solve this challenge. Let the team disperse, and go back to what they regularly do. Then bring them together, one or two days later. The brain has been allowed to rest, and the question has been playing around in team members' brains over this period. Doing a brainstorming at that moment will deliver far superior ideas than the immediate brainstorming.

Need urgent and great new ideas ? Slow down first !

Looking for a-ha's ?

In a recent HBR article (November 2014), Mohanbir Sawhney and Sanjay Khosla indicate 7 areas where people or organizations can look for new insights and new ideas for products or processes or improvements in general. They define insight as an “imaginative understanding of an internal or external opportunity that can be tapped into to improve efficiency, generate revenue, or boost engagement.” A more simple term is “the a-ha moment” that we have all experienced at some point. The authors list different areas where individuals or teams should be looking for such insights, like  anomalies in customer data or evaluating the frustrations customers (internal or external) have with your organization’s services. They explain clearly WHERE to look, but the key of HOW to look is a bit buried and not made really explicit. They end each of their 7 sections by giving examples of how to actually find these insights, and the how in this case is ... the question ! The authors each time highlight the potential discovery by examples such as “ask yourself … is this or that possible ? what would happen if … ?” And this part ... the HOW ... is really the key to creating insights, because you can apply this to any situation, way beyond the 7 proposed by the authors.

Asking questions to yourself, and hoping that some of them will generate an insight, is possible but limited by our own mental models. It is difficult to pull yourself out of your comfort zone and questions that you ask yourself would probably be limited in depth or degree of innovativeness. So that’s why it is useful to put a group of people around a table, and instead of brainstorming for solutions or answers to a given problem, ask each to come up with questions. The rule is that people can only state questions, and nobody will be answering them. The questions are there to stir up ideas. Just like in brainstorming, no questions are off limits, and nobody can react and judge what others are saying.  At first it will be a bit awkward, and some of the questions will be very basic. But keeping the practice up for some time, you will create a dynamic where certain questions trigger other questions. Don’t be discouraged by sometimes long periods of silence. Thinking is not a bad thing when it happens !

You can hope for a-ha moments while in the shower or doing your favorite sport. Or you can teach your team to create them by asking each other questions … Give it a try !

Seeing the same elephant

In the Indian parable of the six blind men and the elephant, each is very convinced about what he is facing from the way he is interacting with it. Yet when they share with each other what each thinks the strange creature they are facing is, it is clear there is no cohesion in their views.

This often happens in organizations. A team is asked to deal with a challenge, but people are hesitant to ask questions for fear of looking incompetent or unsure. After all, we are paid to solve problems, so when we are given one, we need to deal with it. A few days or weeks or months later, gaps and cracks start to appear. The solutions are not really working. What HR thought is not really compatible with what the production or the finance team has in mind. A lot of bickering appears about whose solution is better and why this or that won't work. Very rarely does the team go back to the starting point: what is the problem we are dealing with ?

That is a critical phase we spend a lot of time on when we apply the Action Learning methodology with a team facing a challenge. In fact, we will not talk about or suggest solutions, until the team has reached a shared understanding of what the problem is, and has written it down. Only then will the team go into looking for appropriate solutions. Spending time to reach this key point has clear advantages, as was demonstrated again in a recent experience.

The team had already spent 2 sessions (1/2 day each time) to work on the challenge, to look at it from different angles. Asking questions and identifying actions each of them took after the session, to try and get a better understanding. A better understanding of the problem the organization is facing, not a better understanding of solutions. And when, during the 3rd session, the team came to a consensus about what the real root cause of the problem was (and wrote it out in full, see the picture), two things happened:

(1) there was a real sense of achievement and of having made progress ...
(2) with a clear agreement of the problem, the solutions became almost obvious - although maybe not easy to implement.

The first point about sense of achievement is really critical. After all, the team had "only" reached a shared agreement of the problem ! They hadn't even solved it yet !! However, the positive energy that had built up in the earlier sessions, and the clear consensus of where the root cause lay, ensured that the team could quickly come up with a very comprehensive list of proposals (in the 4th and final session) that was proposed to management. And it was a clear team effort, with everyone feeling 100% at ease with the solutions.

When you keep on dealing with the same problem year after year, ask yourself the question: is my team really seeing the same elephant ?

Is your team brain-dead ?

It is commonly said that we use only 10% of our brain. Although the biological facts are a bit different, it remains pretty much accepted that there is much more potential for using this phenomenal tool to its full capability. Consultants and trainers will explain that they will unlock the remaining 90% of your team's brain power, and your performance will go through the roof.

Back to reality.

Working with a team on an organizational challenge, we arrived at the team debrief after the third working session. The three sessions had been intense but rich in discovery and learning. During this third session, the team had agreed on a shared understanding of the root cause of the challenge. The team was making good progress and had started to identify very interesting solutions to this problem (of which the sponsor had said "it exists since the company was founded 43 years ago !"). Towards the end of the session, I asked each member around the table to share "how they were feeling ?". Replies were varied. One member said ...

"I feel tired. I have never been doing so much thinking. In my normal working days, I get by doing this and that, some routine stuff, pretty much switching my brain off ... I feel tired from thinking." 

There was no stunned silence or gasps of shock around the table. It was more like mumbles and smiles ... Everyone recognized themselves in this description. This was not a group of assembly-line operators or laborers. These were so-called knowledge workers, supervisors and support staff whose job it is to solve problems, come up with solutions on a daily basis and who lead themselves teams. 

I don't think they are lazy. Or enjoy "switching their brains off". In fact, they had simply never been asked to switch their brains on !

Before attempting to tap into the 'unused' part of your team's brains with a fancy training session, ask yourself what you do to encourage your team to use their brain. For real. Giving them a problem and telling them it is their task to solve it. And then stick with this when they tell you they are stuck. 10% of brain power is in fact more than enough. If it is switched on at least once in a while.

Accelerating leadership development ?

Do you need to accelerate your leadership development ?

 

Not many business leaders would say they are not concerned about developing the teams that will lead their business in 5 or 10 years from now. There are plenty of business opportunities, but very often we are confronted by the question of who will take the lead of the company's growth. We know we cannot do everything ourselves. But we have doubts about our existing teams. We know their limits and think more about why they will NOT be able to deliver. We imagine that we will find that perfect pearl somewhere on the market. Someone that really has all the talents and qualities that will drive our business to the next level.

 

Yet leaders have come to realize that, although bringing in new talent is necessary, it is far from sufficient. When no explicit effort is in place to develop teams, those bright talents that joined will not stay around for long.

 

So what do you do to develop your teams ? Send them to more training programs ? Ask all of them to sign up for an MBA program ? Or make sure they all join the annual team building retreat ? All these are nice to have, and for sure appreciated by employees. They have almost become benefits. But after years of spending resources on these efforts, it is clear the impact is limited.

What works then ? A survey of 210 business leaders in Asia, organized by the Conference Board, looking for which approaches are most effective at accelerating leadership development, brought out Action Learning at the top of the list.

 

Action Learning is not as physical or fun as team building on the beach, or maybe not exciting as a training-session-with-games-and-role-plays. But it is for sure efficient in developing and growing talent.

There is no such thing as "the great question"

We all know the value of asking questions, rather than giving the answers (although the application of this principle may be more difficult). I am often asked "how do you ask a good question ?". There are blogs and even books that are written about "good questions" to ask. People make lists of the "top 10 questions" to ask in a coaching session.

This is pretty silly. There is no such thing as a good question, in absolute terms. My definition of a good question is a question that makes the other(s) think, and that this thinking leads to insights or breakthrough ideas. It is not about who asks the smartest question in the room. It is about what is the best question, for a particular context, at that particular time.

We recently ran an Action Learning session where one of the participants shared the concern she had about the motivation of her team members, given the fact that all of them had been working long hours for several months. She had brooded about this issue for quite some time and considered she was stuck.

If the participants in the session had read the books on asking good questions, they probably would have asked questions like "Why is this important for you ?" or "What would you do if there were no constraints ?". Great, open-ended and thought provoking questions ... in some circumstances. Instead, someone asked "Have you asked your team members what they think about this ?". "Of course" the problem presenter said "I don't know why I just think about this by myself without asking them what they think !". She explained that she had a very good relation with the team members, and that they often had lunch together and talked about everything ... except this issue. This was the end of the session ! The light bulb had gone off in the problem presenter's head. You might argue that it is rather basic to check with the other team members ... Well, maybe it is basic. For you. But that was not the case for her.

There are no rules for what makes a great question. The great question is the one that gets the light bulb going ... in the OTHER person's head, not in your's ! It depends on the other person, the context, and the particular moment in time. The next great question is not listed somewhere in a book ...

Explore the ideas from your team, for real !

Dear boss

We are writing this letter to ask you why you don’t ask us to solve problems by ourselves. When is the last time you really asked us to solve a company problem other than the company travel day destination or the theme for the New Year’s party ?

We love this company as much as you do. Yes, you have a lot of experience all over the world, more than we do. And it is true that the consultants are smarter than we are, and they explain things more clearly. And they have fantastic Powerpoint slides that we don’t know how to make (and frankly, even if we did, we don’t have the time). These consultants have experience in other industries, and they know about state-of-the-art and best practices.

But we really have ideas.

You tell us you want our input, but very quickly you explain why our ideas won’t work. You explain that you have tried them before, in a previous assignment. Or you just know that this won’t work. In a culture where hierarchy is respected, it is a challenge for us to express our thoughts. And when the person in authority then explains us , with reasons and facts and figures, that this is not really such a good idea, how do you think we feel about speaking up in the future (not to say losing our face and self-confidence) ? Have you  gained your experience by executing the ideas of others, with your own being squashed ?

Give us a chance. Give us a problem. Really give it to us. And let us implement our solutions, make some mistakes, and learn from that experience. Isn’t that what the leadership books write about ? Maybe this can be applied to real business problems and not just the company entertainment activities.

Best regards
Your team in Asia

Focus anybody ?

Daniel Goleman's (emotional intelligence) recent book is titled "Focus, the hidden driver of excellence". There are different levels of focus, but what I am interested in is the focus that exists (or is missing !) in a team.


Have you recently addressed your team (either those reporting to you, or a team of your peers), making a presentation about last year's results or this year's priorities ? Of course, when you make your presentation, you are concentrating on what you are saying, ensuring your message is clear and well understood. But have you ever tried - not easy, as you are presenting at the same time - to observe who is really listening ? Very often, some start to peek at their cell phone for the latest emails. And yet more often, distraction is not noticeable ... People can be nodding or staring at you and yet they think about something completely different. In larger groups, the challenge is even more important. A one-hour presentation by the CEO to the entire workforce is often the opportunity for some unnoticed Facebook time (for the audience that is, not for the CEO !).

More and more knowledge workers spend their working hours on a computer. As one of my Linkedin contacts recently admitted "I was looking for a piece of information on the Internet and ended up spending one hour watching Youtube videos !" Judging from the postings and likes on Facebook, many people I know spend a good portion of their day making sure they have not missed any important update on their social network ! Distractions are abound, and in my view have become a major challenge for productivity in organizations. A few years ago, blocking access to social media sites was a partial solution. But smart phones and fast networks make for a very good alternative !


How can you ensure that your people are working to solve your organization's challenges ? How can you ensure their minds don't wander off all the time ?

The most simple way is to ... stop talking. Ask someone a question, and wait for their reply. And then follow up their reply with another question, not your thoughts on what they just said. And then another question. When you ask someone a question, a very simple yet powerful thing happens: people think (because you are waiting for an answer). When people think and are actively engaged in the exchange with you, they will not wander off and get distracted. They are actually using their brains to think and solve the challenge you offer them. Action Learning allows you to apply this principle to a group setting. I have observed groups addressing an important business problem, for nearly 3 hours. There was no Powerpoint presentation, and nobody told the others what the solution was. People only asked questions to one another. The level of concentration and focus is very powerful. When you have a group of people engaging with each other, building on each other's ideas, intensely for 3 hours, the output of the session is so different from any regular meeting. One of the most frequent comments from a group that has experienced their first Action Learning session is "If only all our meetings could be run like this !"

Don't try to fight Facebook distractions: you'll lose ! Instead, engage your team, give them a challenge and ensure they ask questions to each other. Minds don't wander off when questions are being asked ... ! And the brain is still a pretty powerful tool to look for solutions.

Chasing monkeys

I often come across business leaders who explain how unhappy they are with their team's or with some individual's performance. When I ask for an example, the reply is typically of the same nature. They describe a situation or event, and explain how the team member either didn't react/reply/propose at all, or reacted/replied/proposed in a way that was considered wrong (by the business leader). And invariably, the next step they describe is the same: they explain to the team member what he/she should do or should have done, and demonstrate it to be sure the message is clearly received.

So let's reflect now on what the team member is taking away from this ... For one, it confirms that the leader has the answer, and the correct answer at that. Second, the team member thinks that the issue has been resolved in a rather satisfactory way, because the leader is getting the result he wants. Lesson learned ? Next time, don't do anything (the leader will take the issue on) or ask the leader what to do (he will demonstrate for sure what to do). Win-win !

Business leaders often think they "teach" or share their knowledge by showing what should be done. Leading by example is great but leading by handing out the "right" solutions is not helping your team. What to do instead ? Ask them questions ... Not questions like "Why don't you do  it this way ?" which is an implicit solution, but genuine questions that make your team member think. And once they start thinking ... stop ! Let them think, and react, and adapt what they are doing. If they don't act on their thinking, they are not learning, and you are probably wasting your time with them (as they are with you). If they do, they are learning and they will address future issues with a higher level of experience.  

Stop chasing the monkeys. You may think you are solving problems (and you are) but you are stopping your people from thinking, learning and growing. And there's too many monkeys to fit on your shoulders, however broad these are, anyway !

The missing link

brand new sign in parking lot

Thank you to those who expressed their opinion on the question of Thailand's top priority around AEC 2015, but no, I still don't think the mastery of the English language is the number one priority for Thailand. I have to admit (see at right) that it is sometimes discouraging to see the basics hopelessly missed !  

I think that the key competencies that nearly all Thais are struggling with are problem analysis/solving/proposing and standing up for and expressing their ideas. Both competencies are not developed through the educational system and cultural upbringings, and it makes for Thai employees being not good at them and not comfortable with them.

With problem analysis/solving/proposing, I mean the different steps of logical analysis, comparing possible options to progress, thinking about the what-if scenarios or the next steps, and finally proposing a path to resolution. As a young engineer, it is quite OK and normal to wait for and follow that the manager is proposing as the next step. But growing up in the organization means new competencies are required. Taking the lead in solving problems and defining the direction to be taken is what is required of a leader.  

Standing up for and expressing one's ideas is something most ASEAN professionals have no issue with. In fact, some even go to other extremes and talk a bit too much about all the good stuff they are doing: debating or expressing opposing ideas is enjoyed as a creative outlet for their thinking. For most Thais however, situations where ideas are opposed, even if that is the normal course of problem solving, are avoided, even more so with people in authority or with experience. Yet the people in authority these days expect their managers to be more upfront and open with ideas and input.  Thais prefer to stay on friendly terms with everybody at work. The line between work and out-of-work relationships is blurred, and professional friction or simple disagreement at work is for most seen as impacting the out-of-work relationship.

There is no magical solution. There is no single training course or team building session that will compensate for the years of education and cultural fundamentals. The first step towards solution is for the expat manager to be aware of the root causes of this situation. Even if Thais are willing to improve, they simply are not open to be out of their comfort zone. It is only exposure and experience that will allow some to be more comfortable in problem analysis and expressing freely their ideas. Participating in Toastmasters sessions is a good method to make progress.

In my experience in Asia, I have seen professionals from other countries in ASEAN very comfortable with these skills, and I think this is the real area where Thai managers need to step up if they want to compete in the new economic ASEAN that will be created in 2015. This is more critical than a few mistakes in the English language.

Cynefin and the floods

In my previous blog I introduced in a simple way the Cynefin framework. I discovered this last year, right in the middle of the floods that caused so much destruction in Thailand. The framework helped me at that time to do - with the teams - a reasonably good job of steering our organization through this period. Our manufacturing facilities were not impacted at the time, but our employees and our business activity was.

The flood situation, at least as far as my organization at that time was concerned, can be described as a "complex" problem. Characteristics of complex problems are that they are in flux and unpredictable. There are no right answers, and there are many differing ideas of what should be done. The situation was not simple or complicated, obviously, but also not chaotic. In fact, the events dragged out over several weeks. There was no chaos or sudden dramatic event. Day after day, we obtained (often contradicting) updates from the different news sources on the situation, tried to imagine what could happen, and get ready for those eventualities.

So how did viewing this situation as a "complex" problem help me at all ? As explained in my last blog, the Cynefin framework helps leaders to determine how to react to a problem at hand. For a complex problem, the appropriate approach is Probe - Sense - Respond. The following steps are recommended in the Harvard Business Review article of November 2007.

Open discussions and dissenting views In this kind of situation, a command-and-control approach does not work. The leader does not have the answer any more than the next person. Even the experts had differing opinions about what would happen and about what should be done. Within the organization, we created differeent groups to develop ideas of how we could get ready for all possible scenario. Extreme opinions (from "nothing will happen" to "we're all doomed !") were allowed for discussion.

Set barriers We decided not to review or react to every single piece of "news" or information out there. Internet, blogosphere or Youtube all carried hundreds of snippets of information each day. Considering or evaluating this information overload would have taken half a day. Instead, we created our own measures of the rising water level in our surroundings and objectively and frequently reported this to the people in the organization.

Monitor for emergence Many team members were given the freedom to implement their ideas, even though we did not know the appropriateness at the time. This was not a situation where one could turn to the boss for the correct answers. Allowing all ideas to rise and have people implement most of them created a dynamic and motivation that kept the team going for different weeks.

The crisis turned out OK for the organization although several employees were affected personally. As the leader of the organization, viewing the situation as a complex problem and addressing it with the appropriate approach helped me to maintain the team's motivation and commitment. Having said that, I sincerely hope that nobody needs to encounter this kind of dramatic flood, with our without the Cynefin framework !