Leadership and Change

I think these are intriguing questions, but impossible to answer.

Trust, forgiveness and risk-taking, while inherently connected psychologically, are behaviorally linked on a sliding scale.

Some people are just die-hard risk takers, or may be in certain situations, regardless of how much trust or expected forgiveness for failure exists.

Some people may be so lacking in self-confidence, creativity, or motivation that risk or innovation will never happen regardless of how supportive the environment is.

It's difficult to create a scale of measurable acceptable risk for an organization, but it is definitely important to keep the dialogue open and supportive. I think that is the essence of what K&P are proposing. You can support and invite ideas without taking the risk of action.

Scott, you make an excellent point regarding the University's goal to be one of the top three research universities: there are only occasional emails regarding progress toward this lofty aspiration coming from the top and very little being said at the local level. Our department is probably one of the largest (especially in terms of grant support) research-focused departments at this University, yet we hear little in terms of keeping focused on the mission (other than the fact that the Dean is more involved in appropriate faculty selection, which is not clear to be directly related to the subject mission).

Wouldn't it be nice to hear about the small wins along the way--the progress toward the goal? I'd like to see a visual guage, for that would excite even us non-researchers. (If this is already being done, then please correct me and I'll find out why I'm not receiving this information.)

As K&P claim in this chapter, people stay involved if they can see that what they're doing is making a difference -- even in small ways. Those small wins build confidence to push on in more innovative ways.

Additionally, by creating a climate where it's okay to be wrong (i.e., criticisms are not allowed), people will be more likely to stick their necks out for the common goal (in terms of ideas, effort, etc.) and contribute to the progress.

It is, however, difficult to stifle the nay-sayers. No matter how hard a leader may try, when the group is scattered or virtual, people tend to criticize. I would love to find a way to control those wagging tongues after the meeting is over or after a new idea is communicated. I've lost patience with the "it'll never work" and the "weve never done things that way here" retorts. Sometimes I hear them directly and many times indirectly through the grapevine. Does anyone have some nuggets for me to try?

Scott, having trust at the top of your values list is admirable. It’s difficult for an individual to want to be proactive or attempt positive change if they feel they will be ignored or disrespected. Without trust, new ideas will not flow freely.

Cheri, I think you also make a great point in saying, ”… by creating a climate where it’s okay to be wrong, people will be more likely to stick their necks out for a common goal and contribute to the progress.” As Kouzes and Posner point out, mistakes and failure are not the objectives. “The objective is learning. Learning happens when people feel comfortable in talking about both success and failures.” (200)

While in a meeting yesterday, I was asked to offer an example of ‘poor communication’ that I had experienced in our company. Initially, I began to generalize my response. I was stopped and asked to respond with a specific example. I hesitated and regrouped. In those few seconds, I wrestled with the contradiction of following my instincts (to hedge and be safe) or offering a specific example (to be proactive and a contributing member of the group).

Tricky. Most of the examples that came to mind would lead the group to question or deduce who the individual(s) was that I was speaking about. This felt uncomfortable. If I hedged and spoke generally, I wouldn’t be helping the committee identify a specific situation to learn from. This was a trust issue. (Years with the company have taught me: be reticent or get burned.)

I hedged and spoke in generalizations. Better safe than sorry.

How does a company go about ‘healing’ a community of employees who don’t trust the ‘process?’ How does a company deconstruct, then reconstruct a climate of trust?

I'm reading these three comments to my original post trying to think of what all three have in common. In all three situations, it feels to me as though Leadership is the common denominator. (Maybe that's a big DUH...?)

It seems to me that the leadership in all three situations is not supporting the ideas of creativity, risk, and innovation. I think Janelle is right - not everyone will be willing to "take risky action" (innovate), but then isn't it a leader's responsibility to meet each person where they are in terms of their "willingness?"

Likewise with your organizations Cheri and Liz - is it leadership's responsibility to create an environment where new ideas are given their time in court and means for people to share examples of poor communication? Outing a co-worker's communication habits in front of a group doesn't feel like a plank I'd want to walk - so what other forums might a leader create for you to be willing to share that experience? What would have happened if you had said, "I have several examples of what I would consider 'poor communication' but sharing them here would make it obvious who I was talking about and I don't think that's such a good idea - how else could we do this?"

Cheri - I don't know anything about your group of naysayers but I'd be interested to know more. What role do you play in the group? What are your responsibilities? Who are the others? What are their roles and responsibilities? What kind of accountability exists within the group? Outside of the group?

Thanks for the terrific exchange - wiill look forward to more...

--scott marshall

I also work at the U and also feel that there is not nearly enough dialog about the "Top 3" strategic goal. I actually hear a fair amount of references to it. People use the concept in meetings as an additional reason to support a new initiative. However, no one seems to know much about how the University as a whole or as individual departments should be working to achieve that goal. No strategy has been communicated or passed down through the ranks. If no clear communication or game plan exists, how are the "small wins" supposed to be recognized?

To Cheri's concern: I am also sick of the "we haven't done it this way before" mentality. I battle it every day - not from a leadership standpoint, but simply with my colleagues. It is very systemic within the University (and I think, within much of the public sector), especially with those who have worked here for 10+ years. My department has had a recent influx new employees to the U who are used to change, and are continuously looking for ways to improve our processes and products. This helps the battle. I have not come up with an effective verbal response to the "status quo" type comments. My experience is that retorts to those comments tend to make no dent. However, I have found that joining forces with others who feel as you do, leading by example and successfully making positive changes does work. Those who seem to have a more stagnate outlook are typically fearful of change, but they recognize positive changes implemented successfully.

Why do they have the fear? I think that goes directly back to Scott's reflection and the follow-up responses: No trust. They could have been burned in the past, No culture of forgiveness. Trust was never nurtured in their culture.

Scott, I completely agree. Trust and forgiveness are definitely dependent upon each other. Change successfully occurs because people are willing to try new ways of thinking about things or doing things. When you consistently embrace change and test out new ideas, failure will undoubtedly occur from time to time. If there is no "framework of forgiveness" established, no one will have the trust to try for fear of failure without forgiveness.

Nick Deffley