Building Sustainable Legacies


Are You Ready for the Surprises?

These days all of us recognize that long-term success is not guaranteed for any organization, even those that appear to be secure now.  Unremitting change can sneak up on companies and entire industries with lightning speed. New competition may catch us off guard. Activist stakeholders may make strong and unexpected demands. Disruptive technologies may threaten our products and services.  If we recognize our vulnerabilities, we can prepare ourselves and our organizations to face the inevitable and frequently uninvited changes that can impact our futures.

In our January Transatlantic Blog, Katrin Muff discussed how she learned to build personal resilience while facing challenging situations. She defined resilience as “the capacity to respond to external pressure by adapting and recovering quickly and hence finding a new equilibrium.” This month I will extend her discussion to organizations and explore two different perspectives on organizational resilience.

resilience.jpg

The Coping and Adapting Perspective

A common perspective of resilience is that it involves an organization’s ability to absorb shock, cope, adjust, bounce back and resume previous levels of performance in the face of unexpected threats. This definition implies that organizations are reactively resilient when faced with changing conditions. This capacity for adjusting quickly to unforeseen circumstances is positive for any individual or organization. Who wouldn’t want to be able to bounce back in the face of what could be viewed as adversity?

The Transformative Perspective

Another way of framing resilience is to view it as an organization’s ability to proactively seek the opportunities that even unanticipated challenges can offer.  Rather than merely coping, adapting and bouncing back, these organizations allow change to become transformative. They emerge stronger than before while embracing changes that others might view as threatening.[1] This is the kind of resilience that allows organizations to reinvent themselves.

opportunity.jpg

Characteristics of the Transformative Resilient

Organizations that possess transformative resilience have unique characteristics and cultures. Researchers have concluded that they possess a “blend of expertise, opportunism, creativity, and decisiveness despite uncertainty.”[2] In my own research and writing, I refer to these organizations as change adept.

The challenge as I see it is that so few companies possess these cultures and capabilities. Our research consistently shows that change adept organizations are very rare. In our studies of organizational culture, we find that companies do not have strong track records for large-scale change for the most part. Many fully acknowledge that their organizations do not handle uncertainty well. Very few encourage challenges to the status quo and most fail to allow time for reflection and learning. Without these qualities, organizations are likely to be change inept rather than change adept.

As always, a first step in confronting a weakness is to acknowledge it. Therefore, I challenge you to reflect carefully on the culture of your own organization. Ask yourselves whether the collective has the mindset and capabilities to cope and adapt in the face of threats. This is a minimal standard for survival. Next ponder whether your organization has transformational resilience. When you can address change by looking for opportunities to transform rather than threats to overcome, you will be on the right path for long-term success.

 

[1] Marston, A and s Marston. Type R: Transformative Resilience for Thriving in a Turbulent World. PublicAffairs (January 9, 2018).

[2] Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck,T. and Lengnick-Hall, M. Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21 (2011)-255.

 

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.

 

Advertisements


Corporate Culture in 2017

As I write this blog, year 2017 is winding down. Throughout the year my blogging partner, Katrin Muff, and I have commented frequently on corporate culture. The media seems to share our interest in this subject. Indeed, references to corporate culture have shown up on the front pages of many reputable newspapers and magazines this past year. I did a cursory web search to gather up a few of these stories.

I don’t claim to have done a scientific study of how often and in what context the media mentioned corporate culture.  Nevertheless, many articles popped up when I entered the search term “corporate culture 2017”. Most pertained to companies’ significant problems attributed to toxic corporate cultures. Of course, the media often showcases the bad news stories. Still, the volume of content was significant enough to warrant my attention.

The Wells Fargo Bank fraud hit the headlines at the end of 2016 and kicked off 2017 with bad news for the company. Several newspapers including the Washington Post and the New York Times reported that Wells Fargo employees had opened millions of phony accounts without their clients’ consent. The articles attributed the malfeasance to a company culture where pressure to meet unrealistic sales goals undermined corporate ethics.

Likewise ride-sharing company Uber made the news repeatedly throughout the year. Referring to the egregious sexist culture, the Washington Post had this to say:

“Corporate culture has long been the sort of squishy management consultant term that’s hard to define, even harder to change, and the recipient of lots of lip service yet little action by chief executives. But however amorphous the phrase may be, its importance was stamped into stark relief this week after a former female Uber engineer made allegations about its sexist, chaotic and aggressive culture.” [1]

United Airlines landed in hot water in April of 2017 when a passenger was forcibly dragged off a plane. The articles attributed the incident to a culture where behavior is scripted and employees have little if any latitude to make decisions.[2]

The last few months of the year brought countless stories of cultures where women were treated as prey. For example, in November of 2017, Fox News set up a Workplace Culture Panel following reports of widespread sexual harassment throughout the company.[3]  And as recently as December, the New York Times published an article on sexual harassment at two Ford Motor plants in Chicago. The headline read as follows: “How Tough is it to Change a Culture of Harassment?  Ask the Women of Ford.” [4]

While I could devote the entire blog to recounting similar stories, I believe that the examples I have offered are sufficient to make the point. Culture counts. No matter how amorphous the concept may seem, those of us who lead companies ignore our organizations’ cultures at our own risk. Consider the degree to which toxic cultures impacted companies and the people in them in 2017. Let us each resolve to assess and address our own organizational cultures in 2018.

Take the first step by looking at your current culture. Ask yourselves questions such as the following:

  • What is the purpose of our company and what do we stand for?
  • How do our corporate values influence our decisions and behaviors?
  • What are the stories that we tell each other about our organization?
  • Who are our admired heroes?
  • Who makes the rules for the organization?
  • What do we reward and what do we punish?
  • How often do we have conversations that consider diverse opinions?
  • To what degree do we value the contributions of everyone in the company?
  • What do we do to show respect for all?
  • How do we ensure that everyone’s focus is on serving our customers?

In addition to answering these questions ourselves, we should pose them to others. In my 30+ years of consulting, I have found that leaders are predictably astonished by how employees’ perceptions of the organization diverge from their own. While some are tempted to explain away the differences, the best leaders value the input. They dig deeper to understand and address the discrepancies.

Leaders create the conditions within which a culture emerges. However, they may not fully understand the possible consequences of the systems that they put in place. Likewise, they may be shielded from what occurs within the organization day to day. Asking the right questions and listening openly to the answers can provide them with the needed data for making appropriate changes to improve the organizational culture.

As I anticipate 2018, I wonder what catastrophes might be prevented in the new year if leaders of every company committed to taking  a close look at their own organizational cultures. Chances are most would find a mix of strengths to reinforce and weaknesses to address. And in some cases, they may find signs of the toxicity that, if not eradicated, could create serious consequences for their people and their companies. Let us all resolve to become proactive this new year in stamping out the unhealthy parts of our cultures while fortifying the strengths.

 

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/02/24/why-a-toxic-workplace-is-now-a-much-bigger-liability-for-companies/?utm_term=.c854fdb575d8

[2] http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-toxic-united-wells-20170411-story.html

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/business/media/fox-news-sexual-harassment.html

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/ford-chicago-sexual-harassment.html

 

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.


Why We Work

Work is about a search for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition as well as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life rather than a Monday through Friday sort of dying.” Studs Terkel

How much of your life do you spend at work?  For many of us the answer is shocking.  Working adults residing in the United States spend a third of their time at work, according to recent estimates.  Many of us spend more time at work than in any other endeavor including time with our families and friends. I am not going to debate whether this is the right way to live. However, since many of us will work a large proportion of our adult years, we might reflect on what work means to us.  Are we working only for a paycheck or for something more?

Through my own conversations with working people, I have found that most want to work for companies with a distinct purpose and clear values.  Research that I referenced in my August blog, confirmed that all generations, not just millennials, want to find purpose in their work.

Last month Katrin Muff discussed the importance of connecting our values with our life purpose as it relates to the world outside of ourselves.  Certainly, the workplace is part of that outer world. While our jobs may not suffice to define our total life- purpose, our work and/or our profession are part of our identity.  For example, reflect on how you describe yourself to others.  Chances are if you are a working adult, you include a reference to your profession or what you do for a living.

Since we tend to identify with our work, it is not surprising that most of us want it to be meaningful.

Evidence collected over decades shows a relationship between meaningful work, motivation, engagement and a sense of well-being.  While each of us may have our own definitions of what makes a job meaningful, some common factors are:

  • Person-organization fit
  • Positive and reinforcing personal relationships
  • Opportunities to align with or further one’s values
  • Fulfillment of a social or moral purpose, or broader reason for being. [1]

Year after year we hear that a very large percentage of working adults across the world do not love their jobs and are not engaged with their companies or their work. This disengagement from our work often has a negative impact on our health and well-being.

When we view our work as meaningful, we are also more likely to be motivated to do it well.  In 2015, Alison Alexander conducted research as part of her master’s studies at Northwestern University on how organizations are making work meaningful.  She found a direct connection between the presence of meaning in life and making meaning through work.  She also discovered that organizations with a strong purpose, clear values and commitments to social responsibility provide employees with ways to find meaning through their work.  She concluded that when corporations are committed to serving society, employees can “live their values through their work.”

Last month Katrin Muff argued that each of us must know who we truly are if we are to live an authentic life. I agree, and I believe that that this is also the first step in finding meaningful work or conversely, making work meaningful.  We must be keenly aware of our own values and what we perceive to be our purpose in life before we can expect work to be meaningful. Nancy Collamer, a contributing author to Forbes Magazine, suggests asking yourself questions such as “what five words best describe you”, and “what would you do if you couldn’t fail”.  Regardless of your method of reflection, you must know who you are before finding meaning in your work.

For job seekers, Alexander recommends that you “look under the hood” of the companies you are considering. Determine the degree to which their commitment to social responsibility is embedded throughout the company or isolated to a small group of people in a corporate social responsibility function. Reflect on whether the principles that the companies demonstrate through their words and actions are aligned with your values.  Pursue companies that are committed to the greater good of society.  Ideally, they will have embedded this commitment into all aspects of the company, and every employee will understand the role that they play in contributing to the greater good.

Even if you plan to stay in your current job, most likely you can find ways to make the work more meaningful.  For example, you might seek clarity from your manager about the significance and purpose of your work.  Or if your specific job tasks aren’t fulfilling, you might find others in your workplace who share your interests and values. Perhaps a group of like-minded people can design and carry out on your own time, projects that are fulfilling and contribute to the broader society.  If your company has a Corporate Social Responsibility or Sustainability Department, you might contact them to find out how you can get involved, perhaps as a volunteer.  And if all else fails, start looking for a new job with a purpose-driven company aligned with your own values.

I realize that work will not always be meaningful no matter what we do.  However, despite the role that work plays in our lives, very few of us find all our life-meaning from our jobs or our professions.   In fact it is a bad idea to try to put all our eggs in our professional or work basket. No matter how much meaning we derive from work, we should all seek and find meaning in other parts of our lives as well. We can find meaning from family, spirituality, personal growth, education, community.  The list is very long.  I believe that a sense of well-being, if not happiness, comes from our deepest sense of purpose and our constant pursuit of meaning every day throughout our entire existence.

“For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person’s life at a given moment.”  Viktor E. Frankl

[1] Cardador, T.M.& Rupp, D.E. (2011) “Organizational Culture, Multiple Needs, and the Meaningfulness of Work,” The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Chapter 10.

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.


Pessimism in the developed world runs rampant

This disturbing declaration came from a 2017 study of millennials by Deloitte, a financial and risk management company.  Deloitte has been surveying millennials for the past 6 years and this year they found more general anxiety about the future than ever before.  The concerns expressed included terrorism, income inequality, crime and corruption and climate change.  Interestingly, the participants regard businesses as a force for social impact, however, they believe that companies are falling short in applying their capabilities to alleviating society’s challenges. So where is the disconnect between what millennials believe corporations could contribute versus what they think they are doing to address these overwhelming social issues?

Last month Katrin Muff’s blog was related to this theme.  She wrote about her frustration with companies that cannot see beyond their own short-term self-interest.  Obviously, she is not alone with this grievance.

Over the past few years, the news has been filled with stories about companies that acted solely in their own self-interest with calamitous consequences.  Consider the Volkswagen emissions scandal or BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. These companies flagrantly neglected all responsibility to the environment in pursuit of profits.  And, thus, both companies suffered reputation and financial damage.

While most companies do not commit fraud as was the case with VW, many do operate as if their only reason for existing is to create as much wealth as possible for their shareholders. These companies describe themselves by the products they make and the profits they generate. Consequently, they are in danger of becoming irrelevant to customers, employees and investors, all of whom are becoming increasingly impatient with corporations that lack any social purpose.

On the other hand, many companies do take their responsibilities to society very seriously.  Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a widely-recognized expert on organizations, says that an increasing number of successful companies emphasize purpose, values and long-term institution building.  These purpose-driven companies believe that they are inherently connected to society at large, and thus have obligations as members of society beyond mere economic transactions.  That is not to imply that financial success is unimportant to these companies.  In fact, Kanter says that they embrace financial success partly if not wholly so that they can carry out their commitments to society.[1]  And in fact evidence from a 2014 Deloitte study shows that companies focusing on a broader purpose are more likely than others to achieve success for the long-term. The confidence that stakeholders place in these purpose-driven companies tends to lead to investments and growth.

Most of us want to work for companies with a distinct purpose and clear values.  A  2016 study of purpose in the workplace conducted  conducted by the consulting arm of PWC, showed that  a large percentage of all generations in the workforce, not just millennials, want to find purpose in their work. The study emphasized the following:

“A truly purpose-driven company must have purpose as its guidepost for decision-making—including the opportunities it decides to pursue and not pursue—to demonstrate commitment to responsible business leadership.”

Unilever, the company that Katrin cited in her blog last month, serves as a great example of a multinational corporation that lives its purpose every day. Their vision is as follows:

“Unilever has a simple but clear purpose – to make sustainable living commonplace. We believe this is the best long-term way for our business to grow.”

This purpose is embedded in all of Unilever’s decision-making including how they interact with their shareholders, as well as how they develop and package new products.

It is time for all companies to critically examine their roles in society. Certainly, at times our global challenges can seem overwhelming so it is no wonder that we will see alarming headlines about millennials’ pessimism! Nevertheless, we can’t become so discouraged that we are paralyzed.  It is time for all companies to act with purpose.

Of course, the business community alone can’t fix everything.  However, those of us in this community can and should contribute to finding solutions to our world’s challenges, which, at the same time, will help us make our businesses more profitable and sustainable.  And those not working in the business community can and should hold us accountable for more than merely creating wealth for our shareholders.

[1] Kanter, R.M. (2015) How purpose-based companies master change for sustainability. In R. Henderson, R Gulati and M. Tushman (Eds.), Leading Sustainable Change (pp.11-139). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.


Opinions or Alternative Facts?

Note: this article is part of The Transatlantic Debate Blog series, which forms a conversation between Dr. Katrin Muff and Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins on business sustainability.

Here we are in 2017; and at the beginning of the New Year.  Last year, as a consequence of the USA presidential election, many in this country and around the world tried to grasp the concept of “post-truth”.  It is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “debates framed by appeals to emotions rather than facts”. And now, before even a month has passed, we are confronted with the claimed presidential authority of “alternative facts”.  While both “post truth” and “alternative facts” claims have been scorned in the political realm, haven’t we all experienced similar dilemmas within our organizations?  In this blog, I will reflect on the importance of differentiating between opinions and facts, in order to tackle organizational issues with clarity.

Facts vs. Opinions and Beliefs

Beliefs and facts are not equivalent. Beliefs are convictions that we hold to be true while facts comprise information backed by verifiable evidence.  Beliefs can be based on facts; however often they originate from our values, our identities and our assumptions about the world and hence meet, and arise from, some of our deepest human needs.  Consequently, beliefs, rather than facts, often inform our opinions about specific matters.

Being mere humans, we unconsciously confuse our opinions with facts.  It is almost our default mode because our world-views, the underlying framework for our opinions, have become like the operating system of our thinking.  Thus we likely believe that our opinions are true merely because they are our opinions.  And the level of certainty with which we hold our opinions does not correlate with whether we have based them on facts.  High confidence does not equal objective proof.[1]   This confusion becomes an issue as we join with others to solve problems and resolve our differences both in our personal and organizational lives.  

Importance of Differentiating Facts from Opinions  

Many times over the years I have been asked to work with groups in conflict.  Often the groups are paralyzed due to the members holding fast to their own arguments at the expense of entertaining the opinions of others.  I have seen a common pattern running through these situations.  The most rigidly held opinions tend not to be based on evidence and often are actually immune to it.  Contrary facts may actually strengthen their convictions!  This observation is supported by research reported this month (Jan. 2017) in the Scientific American:[2]

“When we are presented with facts that contradict our world-view we are likely to feel threatened and may merely double down on our beliefs.  The conflicting data presents a threat.2  Facts become the enemy to be slain.”

When faced with this intransigence, I have noticed that those involved have not identified the difference between facts and opinions, thus, again, believing that their opinions are true merely because they hold them.  To resolve these conflicts, we work together to uncover the assumptions that underlie the opinions.  Likewise we focus on exploring the evidence, or lack of it, related to the problems at hand. If the individuals involved are willing to suspend their assumptions/emotion for that limited time and purpose, then this process can lead to the resolution of some of their differences.  And as the facilitator, it is my job to ensure that members can own their emotions without feeling unduly threatened or disrespected.  Ideally the discussions lead to a greater understanding of the basis for an opinion and the motivation that underlies resistance to any contrary opinion or facts.  So-called “alternative facts” are examined within the context of beliefs, emotions and evidence.  Of course this approach is not guaranteed to succeed.   After all, strongly held beliefs can be tenaciously resistant to evidence.

My Facts vs. Your Facts

Everyone has the right to hold his or her own world-view.  However, I believe that all of us must attempt to understand the premises upon which our own and others’ views are based.  Of course our values, feelings and beliefs will always be the beginning point for our arguments and our actions.  However, I do believe that we should seek to understand and acknowledge the origins of our opinions.  Easy to say, hard to do.

Nevertheless, facts matter.  Of course no one will ever corner the market for facts. Individuals may have access to different facts.  Sharing this information can add to the collective pool of knowledge that allows good decisions to emerge.  However, some facts are more valid than others depending upon their basis. And alternative facts, to the extent to which they are stated without evidence, are never acceptable for justifying our opinions.  Rather, we should acknowledge those cases, where our opinions and conclusions are based on our own values or needs, rather than conjuring false evidence or stating our opinion as fact just because we believe it.  To do so requires self-insight and maturity.  As scientists remind us, science can never promise knowledge of absolute truth but it enables us to eliminate what is false.[3]

Organizations are complex and diverse. If we are to contribute to our own organization’s success, rather than hinder its progress, each of us should seek self-awareness.  As we understand ourselves, we will become more capable of appreciating the diversity of others.  Our ability to move forward together depends on mutual respect, which comes from understanding.  The future of our organizations, and indeed our societies, rests on our ability to leverage our differences to meet our common goals.  We have no room for post-truth or alternative facts.

[1] Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen L. Macknik. The Delusion of Alternative Facts. Scientific American, Jan 27, 2017  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/illusion-chasers/the-delusion-of-alternative-facts/

[2] Michael Shermer. How to Convince Someone when Facts Fail.Scientific American,  Jan 1 2017 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/

[3] Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen L. Macknik. The Delusion of Alternative Facts.Scientific American, Jan 27, 2017  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/illusion-chasers/the-delusion-of-alternative-facts/

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.


When Values Collide

Note: this article is part of The Transatlantic Debate Blog series, which forms a conversation between Dr. Katrin Muff and Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins on business sustainability. Read the previous post here.

In looking back over the blogs Katrin and I wrote this year, I noted that “change” is a theme connecting most if not all of them. We discussed the urgent need for change, various levels of change, forces that propel change as well as those that hinder it. We examined the need to understand our own change-related assumptions. We offered suggestions for how to become change experts. And last month Katrin described an engagement with a client where she facilitated a change process. All along we have acknowledged that change is difficult. This month I will reflect on how recent change-related challenges have confronted me personally and what I have learned as a result.

When Katrin and I were together this past summer, we discussed how differences in strongly held values complicate a change process requiring commitment. Just as we aren’t willing to compromise our own values, neither are others whose values diverge from our own. I came away from our conversation with a firm belief that that this dilemma deserved significant attention. Soon thereafter, I was faced with the very quandary that we discussed. Currently I am still looking for a clear path towards a solution.

While only just barely surviving emotionally from the U.S. presidential election, I am struggling to find a way to respond to others who welcome a political change that I believe violates my deeply rooted values. To make matters worse, many who seem to be embracing these changes are my childhood friends and family members. My unanswered question is whether we can find a way to move forward together.

I must admit my first inclination has been to avoid any uncomfortable interactions with those whom I perceive to be on the “opposite side”. Of course, readers of this blog know that I have argued against this behavior repeatedly and in fact throughout my entire professional life. I am not unaware of the dangers in adopting avoidance as a long-term solution. However, while my emotions are still high, ducking these uncomfortable interactions may be healthy for the short term.

As I look to the longer term, I wonder if I will ever be able to bridge what feels like a yawning gap dividing me from many others. Of course I am all too aware of the advice that I have offered others in this same predicament over the years. I have consistently advocated acknowledging the legitimacy of varying worldviews. I have urged others to accept the fact that some core values are deeply embedded and are difficult, if not impossible to challenge. Therefore the best approach is to seek to understand and perhaps find some overarching common ground.

Thus I have proposed that the best way forward is to engage with others in open and nonjudgmental conversation where each respects the other’s points of view. I do still stand by all of these suggestions for many if not most conflicts that rest on values differences.

However, at the same time I believe that some changes are worth resisting. It seems to me that occasionally we will be confronted with opinions and behaviors that are not worthy of respect even if they do represent the values of others with a different worldview. This is a conclusion that I draw reluctantly. I like to think that there are always avenues for finding common ground.

Nevertheless, I have concluded that sometimes we may face circumstances where respecting the values-driven opinions of others violates our own moral codes. Undoubtedly these situations are rare. And the trick is in recognizing them. Personally, this task is difficult for me. I, like most, am very good a rationalizing my own attitudes and behaviors. My avoidance of engaging with dissimilar others around the issues raised by the recent election could in fact be a rationalization. Or it could represent my being true to myself. I do believe that, at times, resistance is not only acceptable but also imperative. And, of course, I am aware that avoidance is not the same as resistance. Therefore to choose a path I must question my own motives and delve into actions that my convictions justify.

I am ending this blog with no firm conclusion concerning which path is the right one for addressing my current challenges. What I do know is that I must continue to ask these questions hoping that I will find an answer that I can embrace with conviction.

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.


Mental Models

We live in a complex world fraught with challenges that require large-scale change. Thus all of us need to become change experts who can function at the individual, organizational and societal levels.  These statements echo the themes of Katrin Muff’s blog last month.  I agree with her premises.  Therefore, this month I will build on her idea by examining the importance of mental models to change expertise.  This is a complicated and much discussed topic, and I don’t intend to cover it thoroughly.  I will merely introduce it in this blog and include my arguments as to why it is important for change expertise.

What Are Mental Models

Mental models are the frameworks and filters through which we view the world. Even though our mental models are often hidden, we all have them. They include our values, assumptions and beliefs, and they shape our attitudes and behaviors.  We develop our mental models through our individual and cultural experiences.

Ideally these frameworks evolve as we gain new experiences and information.

However, mental models may blind us to ideas that do not conform to our version of the world.  When these models become rigid, they can prevent us from understanding others and can limit our ability to find new and creative ways to solve problems.

Challenging our Own Mental Models

Assumptions are key components of our mental models.  And, by definition, assumptions are accepted as true without question or proof.  Therefore, we are indeed unlikely to be fully aware of the frameworks that guide our thoughts and actions. However, we can learn to bring our mental models to the surface and to challenge our assumptions.  Some common methods include:

  • Interacting with others whose viewpoints differ significantly from our own.
  • Exposing ourselves to situations outside of our normal experiences.
  • Asking ourselves why we act as we do.
  • Examining what our thoughts and speech imply about our mental models.
  • Analyzing how we developed our assumptions, e.g. what information, experiences, values might underlie them.
  • Actively look for evidence that might disconfirm the way we view the world.

Mental Models and Change

Mental models concerning change vary and certainly influence how change experts approach their tasks.  I describe the following two frameworks as examples.

Mental Model 1:   Many change experts assert that people naturally resist change.   They imply that the role of the change agent is to overcome the opposition.  They offer suggestions on how to understand resistance, how to prevent it, and most frequently how to overcome it.  They tend to recommend presenting facts, communicating frequently, making rational arguments and engaging in all kinds of persuasive techniques to win over the challengers.  Their desired outcome is to bring others around to their point of view. Most likely their underlying assumptions include the following:

 

  • I can change others.
  • Most people don’t like change and thus will resist it.
  • People are rational in reacting to change.
  • My efforts are effective to the degree that others adopt my point of view.

 

Mental Model 2: Now let’s consider a different framework for understanding change.  Change experts operating within this framework suggest that people usually react to change in stages. In the first stage, they are likely to experience ambivalence. The role of the change expert at this stage is to assist people in resolving this ambivalence. Thus the change expert would accept ambivalence as normal and acknowledge its validity to those experiencing it.  In this first stage, the change expert would assist others in weighing the pros and cons associated with the change.  They would ask open-ended questions as they seek to understand the others’ views.  They would engage in more listening and reflecting than telling and persuading.  They could tentatively offer facts and opinions only after listening to the others carefully.  When they do so, they should also share their own underlying assumptions. In all cases, they should remain non-judgmental and avoid implying that they have all of the answers.  Most likely the underlying assumptions of this approach include the following:

  • I cannot change others.
  • People experience ambivalence when faced with change.
  • All change holds pros and cons.
  • People react to change emotionally before responding rationally.
  • People will make their own choices as their ambivalence lessens.
  • My efforts are effective when people make choices and move forward.

I am not suggesting that one of these mental models is more superior to the other. I am arguing that the differing assumptions underlying each of these models will guide how the change expert acts.

In our complex world, no one has all of the answers for solving our individual, organizational or societal problems.  However, as change experts, we can function more effectively in all three levels when we learn to challenge our own assumptions. Especially at the societal level, our ability to consider multiple mental models is critical.  By exploring various ways of viewing the world, we are more likely to land upon new and more creative solutions to the issues that often seem to be so intractable.

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.