Month: September 2017

BOOK REVIEW: DEEP CHANGE

Deep ChangeDAN’S SCORE: Stars 4
Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within
by Robert E. Quinn


This book scared me.

After completing it, I realized what I would need to be willing to do in order to make real change in my organization. Facing that thought was frightening.

The book was recommended by a participant in the TNE Study Sessions series as a way of making effective change in an organization.

Quinn is different than other management scientists in that he believes the external world can be changed by altering our internal world. In other words, where most believe that change must come from the top down, he proposes it can start from the bottom up and that one person can make a difference.

There is a ton of stuff in here that was really good and worthy of restudy, but here are some of my bigger takeaways:

  • Quinn says that most organizations are slowly dying (he calls it slow death) and they are taking their employees along with them. For the organization, this slow death is literal, for the individual, it is more figurative—the person is dying inside, i.e. losing who they are.
  • Quinn talks about different strategies people employ when dealing with slow death. Most accept it for what is is, and die with the organization. Others take the strategy of doing their best and, at the same time, preparing an exit strategy. Quinn says the problem with this strategy is that most find the same problems in the next organization they go to. A third option is to change your paradigm to one of transformation.
  • His “Tyranny of Competence” chapter was excellent and explained why we we often rely on heroes to manage and why they so often fail. The technically competent person who doesn’t know how to handle people begins to control every facet of their people’s lives and morale plummets. Technically competent people must play well with others and must train others to become better, or they must go. (I have witnessed this personally.)
  • “The Internally Driven Leader” was probably the best chapter. Quinn reviews three typical paradigms- Technical (the front line worker), Transactional (the manager), and Transformational (a change leader). He explains these paradigms and how our culture emphasizes the technical and transactional paradigm. One who wants real change must embrace the transformational paradigm.
  • Those who have a transformational paradigm hold the view that their vision must be realized at any cost. The system is seen as not just a technical or political system, but also a moral one.
  • Their source of credibility is their behavioral integrity. They must walk the walk and talk the talk. Every action must be in align with the vision, otherwise they are seen as a hypocrite.
  • Those who embrace the transactional paradigm are internally driven. They appreciate technical competence and political exchange, but are able to see beyond it. They do not see survival as a driving force. Their main objective is the realization of their vision. Identification with the organization is so complete that the leader is willing to die for the vision or principle because it is right. (SCARY).
  • Those who hold a transformational paradigm are rare.
  • Quinn argues that one doesn’t need new skills and competencies to create change, you need a new world view (not sure I agree—one needs to have the power of persuasion).
  • Organizations, by their nature, are there to create equilibrium, not change.
  • Every couple of years, you need to bet your job, otherwise, you aren’t doing your job. But don’t be stupid. You can’t be wild and fly off on every issue. You have to pick the issues that really matter. (I took this to heart)
  • Excellence is a form of deviance. You become excellent because you do things normal people do not want to do. You become excellent by choosing a path that is risky and painful, a path that is not appealing to others. Why would someone want to do it? Because it is the right thing to do and it brings about enormous self satisfaction. That is the key motivator—these leaders do it because they know it is right.
  • It is much easier to solve today’s problems than to mold the future. It is easier to be an analyzer and task master than developmental and a visionary motivator. Transformational leaders can be both. They link the operational present with the developmental future. This is what makes them persuasive. Useful visions inspire people to new levels. (I think these are wise words).
  • Learn to listen to the voice of the organization, not your individual voice. The individual voice maintains self-interest. The organizational voice wants the organization to succeed. It bows to truth and doesn’t care about power. It seeks to expose painful realities. It seeks the collective good. The inner voice is often a threat to those in authority. It is the most potent source of power in an organization.
  • Quinn points out that when a leader decides his organization must change, he typically expects others to change, not him. This is human nature, but is why many change initiatives fail.
  • We are too often fixated on task completion instead of maintenance. Most will agree that maintenance is important, but no one makes the time to do it. We are under pressure to just complete tasks. However, all we are really doing is kicking the can down the road and allowing the crisis to appear later.

This book made me question how far I am willing to go to make a change. I drew the conclusion that I have the transformational paradigm, what I lack is a realistic strategy for implementing change. He proposed that change is built on the fly (he equated it to building a bridge as you are trying to cross) and that resources will just appear if your vision is strong enough (sounds little voo-doo to me, but who knows?).

Its a book I will definitely be referring to moving forward. It can be bought here.

Advertisements

The Question on the Wall- A Lesson Learned

Its not easy wanting to be a change agent but having to figure it out on my own. It is so hard to know what to do: when to take a risk, when to hold back, what direction to take. Sometimes I fail. Here’s what I learned from a recent experiment.

I was inspired by the book, Leading with Questions. One of the book’s premises is that asking questions gets an organization to change and to learn together. It got me thinking. How can I use this tactic?

My last company had this white board in the break room that posed questions to the employees. Just before I left, I had volunteered to pose a question. The answers received generated discussion among management. The last I heard, positive action was being taken and it was all because of asking the right question. Could I replicate this experience at my new company?

We have these dry erase white walls all over the floor at my present company. The idea of posing a question that generated discussion seemed like a good idea to me. But which question to ask?

I was listening to a podcast with Mark Graban and the topic of culture came up. This interested me because our company has been conducting surveys about our culture and how we can improve it. Mark said one question he would pose regarding culture was “What is wrong with your culture that you wish to change it?”

I figured this would by my question, so I went into our break room and on the wall wrote:

Question

I was curious to see what would happen. Would it generate discussion? Would people write answers? Would it just sit there for a few weeks with no engagement? Would people demand to know why I posed such a question and become angry?

When I came back the next day to see if it had gotten any activity, I found the question had been erased.

I asked one of my co-workers, who knew I wrote it, why she thought it had been erased. It turned out she had erased it. Here was her reasoning:

She said the question was being viewed as negative. People wanted to know why someone on contract and not a full time employee had the right to ask a question such as this. It seemed to be an attack on the company. She also said people wanted to know why someone would pose such a question in the first place. What was its purpose? She said her concern was that the wrong people would see it and I would be fired for it. She said she let my supervisor know about it just in case there was backlash. To protect me, she erased it. She said the survey that was about to go out regarding culture would generate a discussion among leaders who would figure out how to make a positive change. She also said I should go through proper channels if I had concerns such as using the suggestion box (I pointed out to her that its never used), having the Best Places to Work Committee address the issue (she believed the question may have stepped on the committee’s toes) or go up the chain of command–not write a question on a wall.

I’ll make no bones about it. Her words hurt and I was also embarrassed. I thought she was probably being overly cautious, but she had some points I could think about. A lot of what she was saying boiled down to perception. The question is– was her perception indicative of what everyone thinks? Or was it just her? This person was obviously afraid of the ramifications for posing the question. Is she the exception or the rule?

I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised by the backlash. Mark said his question often upset people, so why should this have been any different?

After some thought and bouncing it off others, I believe the question’s phrasing may have been what got it into trouble. I used the word ‘wrong’ which is negative. If I had instead phrased the second part of the sentence, “what is it about our culture that you feel needs to be changed?” perhaps it wouldn’t have hit nerves.

The story doesn’t end here. Our new leaders held a Town Hall meeting and were inviting questions. I thought about posing this same question. However, our department director told me explicitly (in front of the whole floor) not to ask any provocative questions. I was angry, but perhaps this is indicative of the perception people have of me—am I being perceived as a rabble rouser? I would guess that the IT director does not want me to embarrass him or the department in front of our leadership. In other words—he doesn’t trust me. Not a good situation to be in (or, admittedly, he may just not trust leadership).

So, lesson learned– I just found a boundary of comfort for this organization. I definitely shouldn’t have been unilateral about it. Change is not something I can do flying solo. I have to be careful of people’s perception of me and what I do. I’m also going to have to get more people’s trust. I need to better understand how I can do this.

My next step— find a better forum to ask questions: one-on-one, in social situations, during meetings. Get feedback on how people perceive me. Continue to look for things that are working and things that are not. My goal is to get people to have a dialogue about what can be improved so we can come together and make a positive change. Perhaps I should have started with this goal in mind before I posed the question.