Category: Teams

How Leaders Turn Thinking Into Action: Lessons From Five Years of Data

on By 1 Comment

Organizations develop unique patterns in how they navigate complexity and uncertainty. After five years of assessing how leaders approach challenging situations, we’ve discovered that different organizational cultures rely on markedly different information sources to make decisions – insights that challenge our traditional one-size-fits-all approach to leadership development.

I don’t think anyone would be surprised to learn that a group of leaders in a government auditing function would process information differently than a group of technology company sales leaders. Why then, do we offer both groups the same advice about aligning stakeholders, influencing senior leaders, and managing change?

The SCAN Framework

To help leaders identify hidden influences and unseen barriers in complex environments, we developed the SCAN framework. This tool assesses four critical data sources that inform leadership thinking: Structures (organizational systems and norms), Context (environmental factors), Assumptions (underlying beliefs), and Needs (stakeholder motivations and desires). SCAN scores allow us to visualize how different leaders prioritize these information sources when moving from thinking to action.

Our analysis reveals that functional groups and organizations develop distinct thinking-to-action cultures – consistent patterns in how they process information when setting direction, making decisions, or solving problems under uncertainty.

Three Distinct Thinking-to-Action Cultures

The bar graph compares three different groups of leaders from three different organizations and functions. Bar heights represent percentile scores for each dimension of the SCAN framework. The black dashed line represents the average score for each dimension based on total database responses from groups working in the same functions and organizations (n=1528).

Leading Change

Let’s consider what the SCAN profiles in the above graph suggest about how each group of leaders might design a large-scale change effort and the pitfalls they might encounter during implementation.

Government Audit Managers

These leaders demonstrate a strong focus on existing systems and norms, scoring notably higher than average in the Structures dimension. Their systematic approach brings stability and consistency, but also creates specific challenges in change management. They tend to overlook environmental factors outside their direct control (low Context) and rarely question established systems (low Assumptions).

When leading change initiatives, these leaders excel at working within established frameworks but need to strengthen their ability to:

  • Connect change efforts to broader strategic objectives
  • Respond to shifting external factors
  • Challenge procedures that no longer serve their purpose

Technology Company Sales Leaders

These leaders excel at reading market signals and external trends, with significantly higher Context scores than average. This market sensitivity creates agility but can lead to implementation challenges. Their attention to market dynamics often comes at the expense of understanding internal systems and processes (low Structures), while established organizational beliefs remain largely unexamined (low Assumptions).

Their change initiatives benefit from strong market alignment but require additional focus on:

  • Analyzing how new priorities interact with existing systems
  • Building sustainable processes amid market volatility
  • Balancing quick responses with structural considerations

Software Engineering Leaders

This group stands out for their strategic and innovative mindset, showing exceptionally high scores in both Context and Assumptions. They readily embrace new trends and willingly challenge status quo operations. However, their significantly lower Needs scores suggest that they do not seek inspiration for innovation by attending to the desires and motivations of people.

Their change leadership strengths lie in driving innovation, but success requires:

  • Balancing innovation with operational stability
  • Maintaining quality standards while pursuing new ideas
  • Increasing focus on stakeholder impact and adoption

Implications for influencing, aligning, and deciding

Identifying distinct thinking-to-action patterns help us support rather than overwhelm decision makers when they deal with multiple complex, uncertain, and high-stakes situations. We can start by supplying information that’s easy to digest given a leadership team’s SCAN preferences. Next, we can make information from overlooked sources easier to digest so that leaders don’t run the risk of missing something important.

Understanding your organization’s thinking-to-action culture provides a foundation for more effective leadership development and organizational change. It allows you to leverage your cultural strengths while systematically addressing potential blind spots.

The Emotional Mismatch in Organizational Change

on By 2 Comments

If you’re exhausted, overwhelmed, and uncertain about what might be changing at work next week, take comfort: you’re not alone. The scale of organizational change is staggering. Consider this: in 2023, the management consulting industry in the U.S. grew at 7.7% — more than twice the overall U.S. GDP growth of 3%. When consulting firms generate more change strategies, leaders and employees face even more upheaval in the years ahead.

The Messy Middle of Change

Given this trend, we at Unstuck Minds aren’t surprised by the recent requests for workshops about dealing with change. While most organizations want help preparing for change, many reach out when they’re already stuck in the middle of it.

While developing a change workshop, I found unexpected insight from an emergency room physician. In an October 5th New York Times opinion piece titled “I’m a Doctor. ChatGPT’s Bedside Manner is Better Than Mine,” Jonathan Reisman wrote about his training in delivering bad news to patients and families. He was initially skeptical about using scripts and techniques, believing that “compassion and empathy couldn’t be choreographed like dance steps.”

As an ER physician, Reisman regularly delivers versions of this “bad news” script. He noted, “For patients and their families, these conversations can be life-changing, yet for me it is just another day at work – a colossal mismatch in emotion.”

This concept of emotional mismatch perfectly captures a crucial challenge in organizational change.

The Change-Emotion Gap

When leaders discuss change with their teams, they face a similar emotional disconnect. While not as devastating as delivering life-altering medical news, this mismatch creates tension that can derail productive dialogue about change.

William Bridges’ famous Transitions model emphasizes that while change is situational, transition is psychological. It involves three stages:

1. Ending: People let go of the old way

2. The Neutral Zone: A period of uncertainty and confusion

3. New Beginning: Individuals embrace new identities and ways of working

The greatest emotional mismatch occurs in the “neutral zone.” Leaders, eager for results, grow impatient while their teams still mourn the loss of familiar routines.

Bridging the Gap: A Better Approach

Just as physicians learn scripts for delivering difficult news, leaders can use specific prompts when change efforts stall. Instead of selling the benefits of change, try these questions — and resist the urge to solve, fix, or judge:

– “What’s making this change hard for you?”

– “Here’s what I’m still getting used to ________. What about you?”

– “Does it feel like something you value is going away? Like what?”

When you sense the emotional gap narrowing, explore possibilities:

– “Not everything is set in stone yet. What might we be able to influence now that things are changing?”

Remember: You can’t force emotional alignment. If people don’t feel safe expressing their true feelings, they’ll find others who share their emotional state — often colleagues who reinforce resistance to change.

The key to successful change management isn’t pushing harder; it’s creating space for honest dialogue about the emotional journey.

Just Smile and Nod

on By 2 Comments

(AI generated the image above with the prompt: A photographic image of a work team of people sarcastically giving a thumbs up. I love the creepy smiles and extra arms!)

When leaders want something from their teams, they often call a meeting. The hope is that through a successful meeting, the team will reach an agreement that creates commitment, which, in turn, leads to action and ultimately makes an impact. That’s the dream.

However, during these meetings, leaders have a limited toolkit to gain alignment. They might use their authority, hint at a quid pro quo, or mediate conflicting opinions to reach a compromise. In the end, leaders are often left interpreting comments and body language to determine whether the appearance of agreement in the meeting will translate into actual implementation of the agreement afterward. That’s the reality.

Head nods or raised thumb emojis are meant to signal agreement, but they could, in fact, mean any number of things:

  • “This is a good plan. I’m ready to make it happen.”
  • “I can live with this proposal, but don’t expect me to make it a priority.”
  • “This will never work, but I’m not going to damage my career by appearing uncooperative.”
  • “Let’s all look like we agree so we can end the meeting.”

What can a team leader do to increase the odds that agreement, or the appearance of agreement, turns into actionable commitment? Enter CADA.

CADA

CADA is a four-step alignment-building process designed to facilitate productive group discussions about a proposed course of action. By the end of a CADA discussion, a leader will know where the team stands and can feel confident that agreements will lead to action.

The four-step CADA process:

1) Be Curious

During the first part of the discussion, the team agrees to set aside their initial reactions and judgments about the proposal. Instead, they ask questions about the basis for the proposal and the implications of acting on it. For example:

  • What current situation are we addressing with the proposal? Or what desired future are we hoping to achieve by acting on the proposal?
  • What information sources were used to shape the proposal?
  • Who will be impacted by adopting the proposal? How might they react?
  • How will we know it’s working?

2) Be Analytical

In the second part of the discussion, the team makes distinctions between facts and opinions about the proposal. They ask questions about the risks and benefits of the proposal, and they apply criteria for assessing it. For example:

  • What are the pros and cons of the proposal?
  • What options were rejected? Why were they rejected?
  • What criteria should we be using to assess the proposal? Based on the criteria, how does the proposal measure up versus alternatives?
  • Given the risks, are we better off doing nothing? If we move forward, what other priorities will be impacted?

3) Be Decisive

The team reaches a conclusion. During Step 3, the team also clarifies whether they are authorized to act on the agreement or are simply making a recommendation for approval. They ask questions about their level of commitment. For example:

  • Based on our analysis, what modifications are required to get full team alignment?
  • Who else will need to weigh in before we can act on this decision? What do they need before they can approve the decision?
  • How will we talk about the decision to stakeholders?
  • What do each of us need to feel better about any aspect of the proposal that concerns us?

4) Be Accountable

The team comes to trust that each member will make good on their commitments. They ask questions about dealing with next steps and obstacles. For example:

  • What will each of us do next to move things along?
  • What barriers to successful implementation do we anticipate, and how will we deal with them?
  • How will we share information with each other about what’s working and what we’ve learned?
  • How will progress be monitored?

The key to using CADA is ensuring that everyone is in the same conversation at the same time. In other words, don’t allow people to get analytical or decisive when the focus is on being curious.

Jay G. Cone is the author of The Surprising Power of Not Knowing What to Do; Discovering Creativity and Compassion in a Time of Chaos. He is the co-founder of Unstuck Minds.

I Thought We Agreed

on By

Team leaders want meetings to end with agreements that lead to concerted action. Much of the advice on team meetings is about how to create alignment. The assumption being, if we agree in the meeting then we’ll act on our agreements after the meeting.

What Really Happens

We know from experience that the vigorous head nods at the end of a discussion don’t always produce the outcomes we appeared to want. In fact, we’re often so relieved to see the head nods, we don’t bother to confirm what people are really thinking when they seem to agree. Here are few possible interpretations of a nodding head:

  • This is a good plan. I’m ready to make it happen.
  • I can live with this idea, but don’t expect me to make it a priority.
  • This will never work, but I’m not going to derail the meeting.
  • If we all nod, the meeting will end.

What can a team leader do to increase the odds that apparent agreement will turn into productive activity?

CADA

The CADA Framework describes four distinct team conversations once a proposed course of action has been presented or developed. In each conversation, the team adopts a specific attitude.

  1. Be Curious
  2. Be Analytical
  3. Be Decisive
  4. Be Accountable

Curious

The team agrees to set aside its reactions and judgments about the proposal. The team asks questions about the basis for the proposal and the implications of acting on the proposal. For example:

  • What information sources were used to shape the proposal?
  • Who will be impacted by adopting the proposal? How might they react?
  • How will we know it’s working?

Analytical

The team makes distinctions between facts and opinions about the proposal. The team asks questions about the risks and benefits of the proposal. For example:

  • What are the pros and cons of the proposal?
  • What options were rejected? Why were they rejected?
  • Given the risks, are we better off doing nothing? If we move forward, how will determine the most appropriate implementation timing?

Decisive

The team reaches a conclusion based on their role in making the final decision. The team asks questions about their level of commitment. For example:

  • Who else will need to weigh in before we can act on this decision? What are their thoughts?
  • How will we talk about the decision to stakeholders?
  • What do each of us need to feel better about any aspect of the proposal we have doubts about?

Accountable

The team comes to trust that we will each make good on our commitments. The team asks questions about dealing with next steps and obstacles. For example:

  • What will we do next to move things along?
  • What barriers to successful implementation do we anticipate and how will we deal with them?
  • How will we share with each other information about what’s working and what we’ve learned?

The key to using the CADA Framework successfully is ensuring that everyone is in the same conversation at the same time. For example, don’t allow people to get analytical when giving the team time and space to be curious.

We feel relieved when we align on something. Sometimes we feel worn out by the effort required to find consensus. When possible, you may want to follow up an alignment meeting with a separate CADA session when people are fresh, and they have been able to reflect on their conclusions before discussing implementation.

Jay G. Cone is the author of The Surprising Power of Not Knowing What to Do; Discovering Creativity and Compassion in a Time of Chaos. He is the co-founder of Unstuck Minds.

Finding Scarce Insights in Abundant Information

on By

Data and information are essential to solving problems well. Data and information are abundant these days. So why do we feel less able to figure things out and less confident about knowing what to do?

Too Much of a Good Thing

Part of the problem is that we have too much of a good thing. At all times and in all places, Information and data are effortlessly accessible. We are conditioned to prioritize incoming alerts and breaking news. We are awash in information, most of it unsatisfying. It’s hard to quench your thirst if you’re trying to drink from a firehose.

First, a working definition to help us differentiate data from information. Think of data as the unorganized facts and figures we detect with our various tools and measuring devices. Information is what you get when someone processes, structures, organizes, or otherwise interprets the data. 75248 is a number, it is data. When 75248 is recognized as a Zip Code, the data becomes information.

A Better Solution

One solution to the too-much-of-a-good-thing problem is to collect less data. A better solution is to learn how to transform abundant data into insightful information. Insights help you solve problems, but insights are hidden. Insightful information is better than obvious information in the same way that an x-ray image of a painful shoulder is better than a visual examination of a painful shoulder.

Better, more insightful information helps in four ways

  • It helps you avoid solving the wrong problem
  • It reduces the risk of missing something important
  • It generates unconventional options
  • It ensures that previously excluded perspectives are seen, heard, and valued

Solving problems is about changing situations. If you want to change a dissatisfying situation, you can think of your challenge as a tug-of-war between the forces holding things in place and the forces motivating change. Kurt Lewin first developed this way of thinking about problem-solving in the 1940s; he called it, “Force-field analysis.”

SCAN for Insights

At Unstuck Minds, we think of our SCAN model as a simplified version of Lewin’s force-field analysis. SCAN stands for Structures, Context, Assumptions, and Needs. Structures can be thought of as the ways we currently do things. Context can be thought of as what’s going on in the external environment. Assumptions can be thought of as our unquestioned beliefs. Needs can be thought of as the desires, concerns, and perspectives of people we should include.

To make it easier to identify the Lewin’s force-field elements, SCAN is made up of two dimensions that focus on restraining forces and two dimensions that focus on driving forces. Structures and Assumptions on the left side of the model tend to keep things stable and preserve the status quo. Context and Needs, on the right side of the model tend to introduce destabilizing changes.

How to Uncover Insights

Let’s say you’re an executive who has formed a team to tackle a thorny organizational problem. You fear that after the team has spent a lot of time researching and organizing their findings, you’ll be left with voluminous information, very few insights, and no clear point-of-view or recommended path forward.

Instead of waiting to see what the team comes up with, request that they organize their presentation based on the SCAN framework:

  1. Structures: What are we currently doing that will make it hard for us to implement an improvement?
  2. Context: What is changing in the environment that requires a response or provides an opportunity?
  3. Assumptions: What unquestioned beliefs about our situation are worth challenging?
  4. Needs: Who should we include in our thinking and planning; what matters to them and what do they think?
  5. Now What?: What insights and options emerged from your work and where should we focus our resources and efforts?

It seems counterintuitive to seek more information as a solution to the problem of information overload. But learning to form insights helps us manage the data and control the aperture of our attention. With practice, SCAN helps us see past the uninvited information to the hidden insights and options unavailable to the overwhelmed mind.

Jay G. Cone is the author of The Surprising Power of Not Knowing What to Do; Discovering Creativity and Compassion in a Time of Chaos. He is the co-founder of Unstuck Minds.