Tag: Better Questions

Move over Homo Sapiens, There’s a More Evolved Sheriff in Town

on By

During a phone conversation last week, my business partner Lisa and I joked that we may be headed for the next evolutionary stage beyond homo sapiens. We noted that even the most adept humans seem ill-equipped to deal with today’s chaotic world. Oh, and it seems unlikely that things will become calmer and more predictable in the future. The conversation lingered with me.

We call our company Unstuck Minds. We believe that people who operate with an unstuck mind bring more creativity and compassion to the world. Creative thinking generates novel ideas and fresh insights. Compassion builds and sustains connections that help people feel seen, heard, and valued.

Homo sapiens literally, the wise human, succeeds as a species in part because we have large complex brains, language, and highly developed social skills. Now we’re starting to experience the downsides of what were once advanced adaptations. Those big brains are susceptible to mental health issues and cognitive bias. Our language skills allow us to spread harmful belief systems. Individuals and groups have begun to use our social intelligence to exploit and marginalize others.

Are the current challenges and complexities faced by humanity acting as evolutionary pressures that could drive natural selection towards the emergence of a new human subspecies better adapted to cope with an increasingly uncertain and complex world?

People are exhausted and overwhelmed. Are the current challenges and complexities faced by humanity acting as evolutionary pressures that could drive natural selection towards the emergence of a new human subspecies better adapted to cope with an increasingly uncertain and complex world? Might humans with unstuck minds be better suited to thrive in the future?

Welcome Homo Mens Soluta

Homo mens soluta, literally human with a freed or unstuck mind, might be where we’re headed as a species. The list below describes a thought experiment about the adaptations required to thrive in a future of increasing complexity and uncertainty.

We will Build Generous Connections with Others

In a complex world, collective intelligence and collaboration will be more advantageous than individual efforts. Homo mens soluta will move beyond the impulse to view relationships between individuals and groups as transactional. In the future, we will provide support and resources freely and without an expectation of receiving something in return.

We will Hold our Conclusions Lightly

Rather than fixating on definitive answers, homo mens soluta will thrive in ambiguous situations. We will feel comfortable with incomplete information and be adept at making decisions based on probabilities and calculated risks. We will form working hypotheses rather than certainties and easily let go of conclusions in the face of new evidence.

We will Notice our Mental Quicksand

A heightened awareness and understanding of our thought processes, biases, and decision-making heuristics will enable homo mens soluta to self-regulate and self-correct. This metacognitive ability will lead to more effective learning, problem-solving, and adaptation.

We will Form Generative Questions

Given easy access to vast amounts of information, the capacity to discern meaningful patterns, correlations, and insights from seemingly unrelated data streams will be advantageous. Homo mens soluta will ask generative questions to take advantage of the available information. The skill of asking better questions will be more adaptive to a future in which answers are abundant, but not equally useful.

We will Develop Attention Agility

The ability to rapidly adapt thought processes to accommodate changing circumstances and new information will become critical. Homo mens soluta will possess heightened neuroplasticity, allowing our neural pathways to reorganize and form new connections more efficiently.

If you want to make sure your genes get passed on to your descendants, or if you’re simply interested in building the mental stamina to deal with our chaotic world, consider developing an unstuck 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.

Are you Facing the Unfamiliar, the Unexplored, or the Unknown?

on By

Not all experiences of feeling lost call for the same remedy.

You may be facing an unfamiliar situation. Perhaps you’ve been assigned a complicated task you’ve never handled before. In such cases, people can instruct you. There are clear steps you can follow. Your sense of being temporarily lost stems from not knowing how to get started. Once you’re shown the roadmap, you feel reassured, and you can make progress.

Alternatively, you may be venturing into unexplored territory. Consider, for example, leading a complex organizational transformation. Here, there is no predefined roadmap. Advisors and consultants may offer relevant experience, but each change effort in every organization is unique. While there are recommended frameworks and methods, you’re likely to encounter unexpected obstacles.

Then, there’s facing the unknown. You may feel disoriented by your inability to make sense of what’s happening. You may be unable to predict the consequences of familiar actions. For example, you might be considering a new business line or expanding into a new geography. Or perhaps an unforeseen situation has disrupted your organization or your life, leaving you adrift. When facing the unknown, current conditions are unrecognizable and what once felt like a priority suddenly loses its importance.

In each case, you could describe yourself as lost. If you need a strategy to get unstuck, it’s not useful to focus on how lost you are. It’s better to focus on how you are lost.

When facing the unfamiliar, you need a roadmap and clear directions. To navigate unexplored territory, you need skills, tools, and a flexible plan. When dealing with the unknown, managing your attention becomes crucial, because you don’t know what to look for or how to interpret what you find.

When dealing with the unknown, managing your attention becomes crucial, because you don’t know what to look for or how to interpret what you find.

Facing the Unknown means getting comfortable with uncertainty

In previous posts we’ve defined the ability to manage your attention when facing complex and uncertain situations as “attention agility.” We have also described the SCAN framework (Structures, Context, Assumptions, and Needs) as a tool for developing attention agility. SCAN directs your attention towards a variety of information sources, countering habitual thinking tendencies that dictate what gets noticed and what gets overlooked. When facing the unknown, SCAN helps you ask better questions.

Before you can apply clear thinking to help you navigate your way through the unknown, you’ll want to come to terms with feeling disoriented. Humans tend to avoid uncertainty. When stuck or lost, we’re attracted to definitive answers and confident sounding advice. We settle for any port in a storm. When the unknown becomes our new normal, the storm doesn’t pass. We can end up settling for the wrong port.

To make sure you don’t respond to an unknown situation with strategies designed for the unfamiliar and unexplored, build your attention agility by taking a moment to reflect on a few questions:

  • What if I chose to pause before taking action? Is immediate action required or am I simply reacting to the discomfort I feel?
  • What’s novel about this situation? Am I jumping to conclusions about the nature of the situation? Am I looking for ways to frame the situation as an example of something I’m familiar with?
  • Who could provide a reasonable perspective that I’m currently disregarding? Are my advisors open to learning or are they set in their ways?
  • What low-risk experiment could help me learn my way forward?

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.

Ready or not…You’re in Charge

on By

The state of the economy is unstable and tumultuous. Do you know what is steady and predictable? Demographics. The Pew Research Center estimates that since 2011, the number of Baby Boomers retiring has been growing year-over-year by about 2 million, and that number is on the rise. In 2020, over 29 million Boomers left the workforce.

Organizations are frantically searching for competent executives to replace the retiring Boomers. Finding replacements for senior executives seems to be the area where the need is most pressing. If you need an illustration, think about who is in charge of the Senate and the White House right now.

A lot of senior executives are retiring or should be retiring. As a result, HR professionals responsible for talent planning must pull off a magic act. They must find a way to conjure 20 years of experience out of 10 years of experience. Consequently, many of our clients are asking us to help them accelerate the readiness of high potentials to take on bigger roles.

You could make a case by taking the glass-half-full perspective. Less seasoned leaders can bring fresh ideas and structural change to our organizations. Yet according to a recent McKinsey analysis, 50% of the CEOs in the study are seen by others as having failed in their early tenure, and 90% of the CEOs wish they had handled their transition better.

Take a moment to consider how framing the issue as a need to “accelerate readiness” directs our efforts. When I hear the phrase “accelerate readiness,” I picture using a microwave instead of an oven to prepare food. The hidden presumption is that there exists some outcome called “readiness.” Ding, now you’re ready.

Just ask any new parent – you can’t ready someone for a transition that changes their life. We can prepare, but what new leaders really need is structural support, a social network, and coaching.

Structural Support

We shouldn’t simply plug a new executive into the void created by a tenured leader’s departure. The previous leader had undoubtedly shaped the routines, processes, and norms to serve their personal needs and style. New leaders should consider their preferred involvement strategies. They should be clear about how they like to communicate. They should understand their preferred methods for analyzing and synthesizing information. Knowing what it takes for new leaders to do their best work, makes it easier to establish new structures to help them perform at their best.

Social Network

Both inside and outside the organization, new leaders need to establish trusted relationships. They may need to reassess their existing relationships in light of their new role. The bigger the role, the more difficult it becomes to obtain unfiltered information. New leaders will benefit greatly from cross-boundary relationships with other new leaders. Think of it as a networking club for any senior leader in their first year on the job. For small and medium-sized businesses, it might mean joining an external networking group.

Coaching

Many executives get coaches. Typically, coaches get pulled in only when a perceived problem is undermining the executive’s effectiveness. A leadership transition coach understands the unique demands of stepping into a more challenging role. Especially when people have gotten used to the way the previous leader operated in the role. A transition coach can provide objective guidance untainted by political agendas. Most organizations don’t want freshly promoted executives to broadcast their doubts and vulnerabilities. A transition coach can lend a sympathetic ear.

Maybe we’ve been asking the wrong question, or perhaps an inadequate question. It makes sense to prepare people for bigger challenges and larger roles. We should frequently review the effectiveness of our training and development efforts. At the same time, let’s think about preparing the organization not just the incoming leader. While we figure out how to accelerate the readiness of our high potentials, we should also consider how to accelerate the readiness of our organizations to support their success.

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.

How to Make a Consequential Decision

on By

Which college should I attend? Which job offer should I accept? Should we fix up our house or sell it and move?

Harvard psychology professor and best selling author Dan Gilbert argues that our approach to thinking through choices with significant future consequences is flawed. Gilbert has shown that we mistakenly assume our future selves will feel the same way about things as our current selves. In other words, when evaluating choices, we project our current mindsets and priorities onto the people we will become after the decision has been enacted. If the decision is consequential, we won’t be the same.

A couple may be discussing when and if they want to start a family. If you interview the couple to learn about their thought process, you’ll hear a lot about how they imagine kids will change their lives. The big assumption hiding in their deliberations is that they can rationally compare their current lives to their future lives.

Let’s say that in the current, pre-kids life the couple enjoys a weekly round of golf with another couple. It’s an important ritual that they prioritize in planning their weekly activities and commitments. The couple assumes that starting a family will spell the end of the weekly golf outings. Gilbert’s point is that when thinking through the decision, the couple can’t really weigh the pros and cons of playing golf against the pros and cons of caring for a child because they don’t have the lived experience of caring for a child to place on one side of the scale. They’re making a comparison between real feelings about their current lives against imagined feelings they can only guess at. We can’t feel the feelings of our future selves.

An alternative for thinking through consequential decisions

Step One: Stop asking, what should i do?

When faced with a decision to make, we have the unfortunate habit of asking, what should I do? The question tricks us into evaluating our options too soon. First, according to Gilbert, we should be skeptical of our ability to assess the options. Secondly, once we start comparing options, we stop imagining new, perhaps more creative possibilities.

Instead of thinking about what to do, anticipate the consequences of your options.

When people struggle with decision making, what they really want is a way to predict the future. It’s not the decision, but rather the outcomes after implementing the decision that matter. By shifting the focus from the choices to the consequences of the choices, we improve our ability to imagine the future. In other words, when I detach myself from the emotions present-me feels about my choices, I can consider how my options will feel to future-me.

… when I detach myself from the emotions present-me feels about my choices, I can consider how my options will feel to future-me.

Step Two: SCAN the consequences

The Unstuck Minds Blog introduced the SCAN framework a few years ago. In our work with organizations, we teach and apply the framework as a thinking tool to develop attention agility. Each of the four elements of SCAN (Structures, Context, Assumptions, and Needs) provide a view into different and overlooked aspects of our situations. Recently, we’ve considered how the framework might support an individual making a consequential decision.

It’s challenging to shift focus from your current choices to possible future consequences. Your current choices are defined and finite. Future consequences are vague, unpredictable, and infinite. The SCAN framework provides a systematic way to explore uncertainty and complexity.

Better questions to ask about a consequential decision

Let’s say that you want to exercise more regularly in the coming year. You are trying to decide between joining a health club, purchasing a Peloton, or hiring a personal trainer. Even though it’s a made-up situation, when you read the last sentence, it’s likely that opinions and feelings about each choice came to mind. Set aside early judgments and imagine asking the following questions instead:

Structures (how things get done in my life)

How will my current routines have to adapt to each option? What will it be like to integrate future routines into life with each option?

Context (the environmental influences of things I don’t control)

What might change in my environment that will influence how I think about the benefits and risks of each option? What might happen that don’t I control, which could change how I will feel about the decision I made?

Assumptions (my unchallenged beliefs)

What must be true in the future for each option to work out the way I want it to? What impressions will people have about me when they find out what I chose?

Needs (what matters to the people who matter)

How might my satisfaction with each option change as my needs change? How might each option impact the people who matter to me?

Step Three: Focus on adjusting to the future as it unfolds

We tend to think of decisions about the future as guessing games, like picking the cup that the pebble is under. We can be right, or we can be wrong. In reality, most of the consequential decisions we face provide a set of questions with no obvious right answer.

When you imagine consequences rather than dwell on how you currently feel about your options, you’re less likely to think of a choice as being “right” or “the best.” You’ll notice the overlapping benefits and tradeoffs of each option. You may even discover an option you hadn’t considered. When you take action to implement the decision, the future will unfold. The more consideration you give to future consequences, the more prepared you will be to adjust to whatever emerges.

In a recent podcast interview with Ezra Klein, the writer George Saunders talked about the power of literature. We feel about SCAN the way Saunders described great literature. “In the end,” he said, “you don’t have an answer, but you have new respect for the question.”

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.

Feeling Stuck? Try Brainstorming Terrible Ideas

on By 1 Comment

We recently led a series of breakout sessions at an annual conference. The conference was put on by a fast-growing bakery franchise. In attendance were bakery owners and corporate support staff. During the breakout sessions we taught the bakery owners how to use the SCAN Framework (Structures, Context, Assumptions, and Needs) to tackle challenging problems.

Most people using SCAN have an intuitive grasp of the structures, the context, and the needs influencing their situation. Assumptions are harder to access. Shared beliefs and mindsets form our operating systems, but like a computer’s operating system, most of us don’t know what it’s doing or how it works until something goes wrong or it’s time for a big change.

The company’s bakeries are known for their unique, high-quality, hand-crafted cakes. They think about the purpose of their business as bringing joy. They promote their cakes as the centerpiece of celebrations. They have a cult-like following of people who rave about experiencing their first bite of cake.

To help the bakery owners become more aware of their assumptions, I asked them to react to a terrible idea. I suggested that they box up their most popular recipes in cake-mix form and put them on grocery store shelves next to the Betty Crocker cake mixes. Lucky for me, I prepared them to be offended by the idea. When I asked them to explain what makes the idea terrible, we started to hear more about their assumptions:

  • People count on us for a consistent, fresh-baked product.
  • Our guests love the variety of choices we offer.
  • Only high-quality ingredients prepared by hand and using our methods will produce the cake. You can’t do it at home.
  • Visiting our bakeries is a joyful experience and essential to our brand.

The purpose of the exercise is not to abandon assumptions. The purpose is to become more aware of our assumptions. When you’re aware of your assumptions, you can have more productive discussions about controversial ideas. Controversial ideas are provocative precisely because they challenge our assumptions. Adopting a provocative idea often means letting go of something predictable and comforting.

Anticipate Change-Resistance

In our experience, organizations don’t suffer from a lack good ideas. In organizational settings, good ideas face two common obstacles. First, the best ideas may never get in front of the people with the authority to enact them. Secondly, new ideas rarely survive their first encounter with the status quo. Assumptions and mindsets protect the status quo.

Becoming aware of shared organizational assumptions will help you anticipate the change-management implications of adopting a provocative idea. For example, to support the growth of the bakery company, there will inevitably be pressure to streamline operations. At some point, an idea to increase efficiency will bump up against the assumption: Only high-quality ingredients prepared by hand and using our methods will produce the cake.

How to use a Terrible Idea to Uncover Hidden Assumptions

Let’s say you feel stuck. The ideas you have look great on paper and you’ve been given the green light to implement them. And yet, you repeatedly experience setbacks as you try to turn your ideas into meaningful change.

  1. Set aside the good ideas and bring together a team.
  2. invite them to brainstorm terrible ideas. Ideas that are guaranteed to produce a visceral, negative reaction from your stakeholders. By the way, your team will find it liberating and fun to produce a list of dangerous ideas.
  3. Rank the ideas to find the best of the worst. When prioritizing the list of ideas, the most useful, terrible ideas will be the ones that are plausible, but feel unsettling. For example, imagine recommending to the senior team of Disney’s Theme Parks that they open a Disney casino in Las Vegas. Useful terrible ideas will take the organization in a new direction, not just offer a bad change to an existing way of doing business. For example, suggesting that McDonald’s become a wireless network operator is a more useful terrible idea than suggesting that McDonald’s serve their food on fine China.
  4. Finally, facilitate a discussion about why the most terrible ideas evoke an emotional reaction.

Once you clarify the hidden assumptions that seem to create a gravitational field that holds things in place, you’ll have a better understanding of why your new ideas won’t take. You may also uncover some ancient assumptions that are somehow still in play, but no longer feel relevant.

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.

The Most Useful Question to Ask if You Expect People to Take Action on a Meeting Agreement, Hint: It’s not, “So… are we agreed?”

on By 1 Comment

Organizations fall into meeting patterns. Leaders often set up and conduct meetings the same way irrespective of the meeting purpose. Getting ready for a status update meeting may not require a lot of forethought. Getting ready for an alignment building meeting on the other hand, requires careful consideration of process, stakeholders and decision-making roles. If you want an agreement, you’ll need to think through how to conclude the meeting in a way that increases the chances people will turn meeting agreements into action.

There are actually two challenges related to a group reaching agreement during a meeting. The first and most obvious challenge has to do with building consensus when people have different perspectives and needs. The second and subtler challenge has to do with interpreting what people mean when they indicate agreement by verbalizing, nodding or not raising an objection. The question referenced in the title of this blog post helps with the second challenge.

Imagine that you have reached the end of a meeting you are leading. You’ve managed to facilitate a productive discussion that has led to alignment on a solution to a problem. You want to confirm that the group has reached an agreement that will result in concerted action. What will you say or ask?

You might be tempted to ask, “Are we agreed?” It seems like a simple way to confirm the group’s conclusion. The most common answer to a meeting leader who asks a group, “Are we agreed?” is silence. Extroverted members of the group may nod or say, “yes,” but you are very unlikely to hear from everyone. For starters, unless the answer is, “no,” no individual can actually answer the question, “Are we agreed?” No individual knows whether or not “we” are in agreement.

Because silence typically greets the question, “Are we agreed?” many teams and organizations have adopted the informal practice of equating silence with agreement; if no one raises an objection, we must be in agreement. Interpreting silence as agreement has always been risky. It can work for some teams and in some cultures. It’s a particularly risky strategy in a virtual meeting setting.

It turns out that the “silence procedure” or “tacit acceptance” procedure has a long history and plays an accepted role in matters of international diplomacy. There is even a Latin phrase for the formal practice of equating silence with agreement: Qui tacet consentire videtur, he who is silent is taken to agree. Both NATO and the European Union use Qui tacet consentire videtur for gaining member acceptance of joint statements and procedural documents.

Asking the group, “Does anyone disagree?” represents an improvement over “Are we agreed?” At least, individual meeting participants can answer the question, “Does anyone disagree?” Interaction Associates uses the term, “Negative Poll” to describe a question framed as an invitation to speak up if you don’t yet agree. Whether or not an individual who disagrees will accept the invitation of a negative poll has a lot to do with the trust and rapport the leader has created.

Whether you use the positive or negative framing of the question, you still have a problem. Let’s say you manage to hear from every person in the meeting. Furthermore you now know that everyone agrees with the proposal or plan under consideration. Here’s what you still don’t know: What does each meeting participant mean when they say, “I agree?”

“Yes, I agree” versus “No, I don’t agree” seems like an unambiguous, black-and-white distinction. When everyone is in the “Yes” column, we should be able to declare victory on the meeting. Consider however, the shades-of-grey intentions that may accompany someone’s assent. A person could indicate that he or she “agrees” and be entertaining any one of the following thoughts:

  • I’ll go along with the majority. I think we are making a mistake, but it’s not that important to me. I hope they’ll remember my warnings when we start running into obstacles and resistance.
  • I think there are better approaches, but this seems workable. I’ll cooperate when we start acting on this agreement, but I won’t volunteer to lead anything.
  • We reached the right conclusion and I’m eager to begin lining up resources and getting people excited. Let’s start assigning next steps.

When you think about it, leaders don’t really need to know whether people are in agreement with a proposal or a plan of action. Leaders need to know whether or not they can count on people taking action or changing behaviors consistent with the conclusion the group reached in the meeting. It’s nice to know you agree, it’s essential to know what action I can count on that will turn the agreement into progress.

Stop asking groups of people whether or not they agree. Start asking each member of the group: “Given the conclusion we’ve reached today, what do you plan to do?” 

 

For a more comprehensive treatment of how to discern what people mean when indicating agreement, have a look at the Interaction Associate’s article, “How Much Yes Do You Need?”

Organizational Quicksand, Part 2: Getting Unstuck

on By 1 Comment

Last week’s blog post introduced differences in the way organizations turn thinking into action. I organized the distinctions by contrasting two attributes of an organization’s culture: The organization’s tolerance for ambiguity and the organization’s preferred influence style. In this post, I want to flesh out the distinctions a bit more and then consider how becoming attentive to your preferred mode of turning thinking into action can help you get unstuck.

The mode of turning thinking into action characterized by a low tolerance for ambiguity and a preference for influence by persuasion, I call “operate” mode. Operate mode moves to action quickly and discussions often feel like competitive sales pitches. Operate mode eschews process and structure. Rule following is seen as time consuming. Operate mode has a bias for trusting the judgment of a passionate, forceful leader who will bend the future to his or her will. Operate mode sees little value in taking the time to build consensus through processes that tap into the organization’s collective wisdom. When in operate mode, introducing nuanced distinctions among options will be judged as unproductive “navel gazing.”

Operate mode serves an organization well when it produces something customer’s value. As long as there is a market for an operate mode organization’s products and services, moving fast and selling hard works. When the value proposition changes because customers’ needs have evolved, operate mode can get an organization stuck.

The mode of turning thinking into action characterized by a low tolerance for ambiguity and a preference for influence by alignment, I call “regulate” mode. Regulate mode is methodical and consistent. Discussions in regulate mode feel formal and predictable. Regulate mode places a high premium on years of experience in the company. If a process or methodology doesn’t dictate how best to handle a situation, the organization will follow a leader who has dealt with the situation in the past. In regulate mode, people want information before they act. In regulate mode, influence takes the form of presentations with a lot of detail about what is happening and how it will happen. New ideas don’t get surfaced casually when in regulate mode. One needs to prepare carefully before suggesting something new, provide evidence that the idea is workable and a business case that demonstrates the idea is worthwhile.

Regulate mode serves an organization well when the customer value proposition includes risk mitigation. As long as a regulate mode business is seen as a trustworthy option, customers will pay a premium for its products and services. When innovations provide customers with faster or cheaper yet equally good alternatives, regulate mode can get an organization stuck.

The mode of turning thinking into action characterized by a high tolerance for ambiguity and a preference for influence by persuasion, I call “debate” mode. In debate mode, skill, expertise and intellect are highly valued. Discussions in debate mode feel stimulating to those who want a rigorous exploration of a topic. Taking action in debate mode feels less important than considering every angle. Authority in debate mode is correlated with expertise. Debate mode embraces ambiguity because it allows every situation to be analyzed and litigated anew.

Debate mode serves an organization well when the customer value proposition is based on superior product quality or service excellence. As long as minor adjustments or extensions to existing products and services continue to be seen as valuable, there will be customers for debate mode businesses. When new market needs require agile responses, debate mode can get an organization stuck.

The mode of turning thinking into action characterized by high tolerance for ambiguity and a preference for influence by alignment, I call “relate” mode. In relate mode, collaboration is highly valued. Discussions are characterized by a desire for shared understanding; leaders seek alternative points of view and include people with diverse backgrounds and beliefs. Opportunities to act emerge when something looks interesting. In relate mode, people put their trust in their colleagues’ ability to marshal resources to get the job done. Because relate mode requires empathy and curiosity, relate mode organizations have long standing affiliations with customers, clients and other strategic partners along their supply chain.

Relate mode serves an organization well when customer loyalty is paramount. As long as customers and business partners value their relationship with the organization, the relate mode business will be presented with new opportunities. When customers and business partners retire, change jobs or otherwise reorient their priorities, relate mode can get an organization stuck.

When your thinking to action mode becomes a trap

Like many overused skills, your organization’s default thinking to action mode can turn counterproductive when you fail to notice that the usual response to challenging situations fails to make things better. For example, if you prefer to work in operate mode and your customers have become disenchanted with your offer, thinking up new ways to persuade your customer to make a purchase signifies being caught in a thinking to action trap.

The Unstuck Minds Compass™ is comprised of four strategies for changing the way you think with others about persistent problem or daunting opportunities. The strategies introduce questions about your situation that you may neglect to ask if you have been trapped by your preferred mode.

  1. Contextual inquiry helps a stuck team zoom out by introducing questions about what is changing in the environment.
  2. Critical inquiry helps a stuck team zoom in by introducing questions about interrelationships within an organizational system.
  3. Collaborative inquiry helps a stuck team by directing their attention to informal social networks and the thoughts and feelings of diverse stakeholders.
  4. Creative inquiry helps a stuck team by questioning assumptions and focusing attention on insights about unmet needs.

Each strategy provides a helping hand when you notice that the usual mode of turning thinking into action has started to feel like being mired in quicksand.

For organizations stuck in operate mode, collaborative inquiry comes to the rescue by providing missing perspectives. To get unstuck, operate mode leaders will have to learn how to be influenced by what they hear when talking with stakeholders and they will need to develop the capacity to remain open to additional input even if it means postponing action.

For organizations stuck in regulate mode, creative inquiry comes to the rescue by providing novel options. To get unstuck, regulate mode leaders will have to get comfortable letting go of the need to see a business case for every idea someone wants to raise. Regulate mode teams will need to spend time openly questioning the assumptions behind existing routines and methods.

For organizations stuck in debate mode, contextual inquiry comes to the rescue by providing a way to prioritize the big picture over getting all the details right. To get unstuck, debate mode stakeholders will have to learn how to question whether settling a point of contention or getting additional input will make a meaningful difference in terms of choosing a course of action.

For organizations stuck in relate mode, critical inquiry comes to the rescue by providing a way to set standards for objectively evaluating opportunities. To get unstuck, relate mode teams will have to learn how to say, “no” even when something looks interesting. To get unstuck, relate mode leaders need to analyze options to determine what makes the most sense for the future and then invest in executing on the strategy better than anyone else.

Love Encounters Suffering: Questions for being with

on By 1 Comment

The shocking deaths by suicide this week (two celebrities among the estimated 860 deaths by suicide every week in the U.S.) bring to mind Martin Buber’s powerful distinction between “experiencing” the world (the mode of I-it) and “encountering” the world (the mode of I-Thou). In the “I-it” mode, we are separate from what we experience, we operate in the realm of analyzing and judging. As a result, we inadvertently establish boundaries that separate ourselves from others. From an “I-it” frame of reference, we unconsciously presume that there is always a ‘thinker’ independent from the ‘thought of.’

 In the mode of “I-Thou,” we encounter the world by entering into relationship. We recognize the illusion of separateness; the word “other” loses its meaning. I, and that which I encounter, each become transformed through participation and relationship.

 The purpose of Unstuck Minds is to help people ask better questions so things can change. What I am learning this week, is the strength of my bias for asking questions that parse and separate. One can recognize and avoid thinking traps through questions that create useful distinctions. One can also recognize and avoid thinking traps by asking questions that remove the distinctions, which isolate and divide us.

 My daughter Bekah has spent several years learning, writing and speaking out about social anxiety, depression and suicide. I’ve invited Bekah to share her thoughts and questions. Questions that help us listen in the I-Thou mode. Ways of listening that help us understand the alchemy when love encounters suffering.

Seeing people around us suffering brings a response of uncertainty. Often, we choose to stay silent to avoid saying the wrong thing or making matters worse, but asking simple questions can foster meaningful connection in our relationships and within our communities. The power of asking questions and listening is often under-appreciated, but it is what I believe will create real change in our world.

Everyone you encounter is different, every situation is different and every story is different, but I would like to share the power of some general questions one can use to send the message of love and care.

  • How are you *really* doing? We ask people every day how they are doing, but unfortunately it has become a longer way to just say “hello.” Taking this question back to its original meaning to stop and allow someone to honestly answer is powerful.
  • What can I do to best support you? Another open ended question. This question gives insight to whether or not your goals are aligned with the person you are talking to. It is also a way for people to communicate their needs with you.
  • Have you ever felt this way? (With the follow up, what has seemed to help you in the past when things feel this way? This question gives empowerment and focuses on strength allowing someone to be reminded of all of the pain they have gotten through in the past while giving them the power to think of their own ideas.
  • You haven’t been yourself lately (give specific observations, you’ve been quieter than usual, you haven’t been eating as much, you’ve been sleeping a lot, etc.) How are you? Giving someone those observations shows that you see them, you’re paying attention and you care. Again, asking them how they are opens the door for an honest conversation.
  • Sometimes when people are feeling this way they have thoughts of ending their life. Are you having thoughts of suicide? This question can be daunting to ask, but it is so powerful. It allows you to understand their current crisis further while also sharing the message that you are comfortable talking about suicide. Asking this question does not put the idea in someone’s head and it can be life saving.

Reaching out to someone can be terrifying, but the most important thing is to show that you care and are willing to sit in that pain with them and listen. Follow their lead and allow them to drive the car. Our job is to simply be in the car with them helping to guide the way because we all need a passenger in our car sometimes.

For more information about how to help or to find support check out The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

33923279_2117464214948294_2331948202690871296_n
Bekah Cone is a Biopsychology, Cognition and Neuroscience major at the University of Michigan and a counselor with the Crisis Text Line. She is currently on sabbatical from her Second City Improv Troupe, A Bunch of Ringos.

The Most Important Skill for Leaders Heading into an Uncertain Future

on By

I’ve just returned from a week in Frankfurt Germany. While there, I co-facilitated a strategic leadership workshop for a group of executives at a global technology company with my friend and colleague Nick Noyes. Nick is a partner and co-founder of Insight Experience, the company that designed the business simulation we use in the program.

Nick and I work together a few times a year and I can always count on learning something new when he’s leading the participants through a debrief of the simulation results. In recent years, Nick has been passing along a concept he learned from the business school professor and consultant, Roch Parayre called, “robust capabilities.” For Parayre, a robust capability describes an organizational capability that can be used in a variety of situations. Irrespective of how things change, a robust capability will be useful.

You could argue that learning to play the piano and read music is a robust capability that prepares you for a variety of musical pursuits. Learning to play the banjo limits your options (Is it just me or does anyone else hear their mother saying, “I told you so!”)

Parayre has devoted much of his scholarship and practice to the art and science of strategic decision-making. He is particularly interested in decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Parayre argues that many of the decision-making tools used by today’s business leaders work best when conditions outside of an organization’s control remain relatively stable. For example, using net present value calculations to help make capital investment decisions assumes that the values we assign to alternatives won’t be affected by disruptive technologies, government regulations or unexpected competition.

In a world characterized by uncertainty, ambiguity and rapid change we should be suspicious of what we accept as immutable knowledge and expertise. Eric Hoffer once said, “In times of change, learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.” To be a learner is to be skilled at asking questions.

I would argue that the skill of asking better questions is the most robust capability to be developed for leaders hoping to navigate the complexities of an uncertain future.

Let’s say an organization’s leaders are faced with a decision about which human resource information system to purchase. Consider the difference between the questions we have been trained to ask and questions that might help us reduce the risk of missing something important:

Questions from leaders who assume the future will resemble the present

·    What will be the impacts of each system on productivity?

·    Which system includes better implementation support and more responsive service when things go wrong?

·    What are the costs and timelines associated with the change management required to implement the system?

What leaders trained to ask better questions also want to know

·    Which processes should we stop doing before automation makes them harder to discontinue?

·    How will automating our HR systems impact existing social networks? In other words, what benefits of inefficiency will we be losing?

·    How might we design a low-risk experiment to help us better anticipate the impacts of committing to a full systems implementation?

The saying goes at Interaction Associates that when feeling trapped by the uncertainty of a strategic moment, “It’s not knowing what to do that counts. It’s knowing what to do when you don’t know what to do.” When feeling stuck for an answer because things have changed, the ability to formulate a better question will serve you better than revising the way you answer the wrong question.