The Paradox of Success

Organizations, like people, sometimes reach a point where the ego, either the collective ego of the organization or the ego of the organization’s key leaders, has swollen to the point where growth is stifled. New learning becomes impossible. Innovation and exploration slow or stop.

“We are the best!” “We are bullet proof!” “We are too big to fail!”

When an organization has become so certain that it is the model for others to follow, that it has the answer to every problem, and/or that it is so competitively superior to others that there is no need to look for improvements in services, products, or delivery systems, the end is near.

The employees of these companies are often the first to detect these signs. The problem is that within organizations where this mindset is held at the highest levels it may be difficult or impossible for lower level staff to get top level managers to see the signs.

In his book The Paradox of Success, John O’Neil gives a few telltale signs that help identify when an organization needs to step back, regroup, and invest in some serious organizational self-renewal. O’Neil suggests that we watch for:

• Centralization vs. Decentralization of Power – In pyramidal structures the decision-making capacity is located at the top, in the top manager’s office. In self-renewing organizations, knowledge and decision-making power are dispersed where the action takes place.
• Adaptability of leadership – The old, more typical, organizational structure has the strong leader; single point of control; a lonely, isolated, resourceful, and action oriented leader. A self-renewing organization develops and nurtures large numbers of leaders who know how to work alone and in teams. These leaders swarm around trouble, and know when and how to retreat to think deeply, and plan carefully.
• Flexible structures and procedures – The typical organization is massive, hardwired with policies and procedures, specialized by department and function, and slow to respond to change or mistakes. The self-renewing organization is light and flexible, situation-responsive, quick to adapt. It thrives on partnerships and strategic alliances, continuous learning, and is aware of its shadows – those places where the taboo topics, and the dark side of both corporate and individual personalities lurk. (The Paradox of Success, John O’Neal, 1994 – P. 254)

Individuals and leaders of organizations need to treasure truth-telling friends and associates. They need to listen whether the news is good or bad. They need to seek out teachers and mentors who will challenge them, and introduce them the undiscovered country where growth and improvement lie. Learning is the fuel that will enable both individuals and organizations to sustain success.

Your role is to be a “truth-telling” friend to the organization and its leaders. Or, if you are the leader, your role is to seek out and listen to those who can see the truth and are willing to say it openly. (This is easier said than done for many leaders.)

Your role is to find a teacher or mentor who can lead you into the wilderness where self discovery and learning can take place. Or, it might be that your role is to become a teacher or mentor who can help others on their journey of growth and discovery.

Either way, you have a role. If you choose to play it, both you and your organization have a chance at success.

What is the truth about you? What is the truth about your organization? Who should you tell? Who should you seek out? Who are your teachers or mentors? When does your journey of renewal begin?


.

The Ladder of Inference

The following was first presented to me by my good friend and mentor, Jim Boylan, PathFinders Consulting Alliance. Jim knows a great deal more about this than I do. So, if you are interested in the deeper implications of how the Ladder of Inference affects relationships, please contact Jim at jbpathfinders(at)roadrunner(dot)com, or click on the PathFinders Consulting Alliance tab at the top of the blog.

________________________________________________

How do you define Truth? What do you believe about human capability and motivation? What do you believe about human nature?

You probably don't spend a lot of time thinking about these questions. But, these definitions, beliefs, and assumptions about others are always acting, filtering, and coloring your response to what is going on around you.

Here's an example. You are driving down the road at a sedate 40 miles per hour in fairly heavy traffic. A small, beat up sedan comes up from behind you, zigzagging in and out of traffic, traveling far too fast for conditions. He cuts in front of you, almost taking off your front bumper. Hanging his head out the driver's side window, he shouts something at you, and speeds away, continuing to quickly weave through traffic.

Your first thoughts are probably "What an Idiot!" or something more forceful. Because of our culture most of us assume that it is inappropriate to flaunt traffic laws, or to endanger other drivers. You know from the kind of car the person was driving, and the way he was behaving, that this is clearly some deadbeat nut who shouldn't have a driver's license. In fact, you may feel this so strongly that you offer the fellow a parting disparaging salute as he drives away.

You have observed a situation, applied your filters and assumptions about proper highway etiquette and behavior, and have come to a conclusion about the character and motivation of that person, and you have acted on your conclusions.

You have just climbed the "Ladder of Inference". (To see if you climbed the correct ladder, read the last paragraph of this post.)

Here's how the Ladder of Inference works:

• I observe objectively - Observation by itself is not a biased activity. When I observe I see what happens, hear what was said, or experience a situation - no more and no less.
• I select data from what I observe - Here is where the filtering begins. I create assumptions about which parts of the event I have observed are important. This assumption about importance is based on how the things that have been observed affect me, or fit into my cultural experience. A person from one culture may not understand the significance of events that occur within another culture. Culture can be large (a country, religious group, political party, or shared language), or small (individual, family, or workgroup).
• I add meaning to what I have selected - At this point, I imply meaning using the norms of my culture, or experience.
• I make assumptions based on the meaning I have added - This process begins to fill in gaps in knowledge. Where I don't know something about the event, I naturally assume that the motivations, behaviors, wants, desires, likes and dislikes should match my own. These assumptions take the guesswork out of understanding the situation.
• I draw conclusions which prompt feelings - Now that I understand the situation, and have filled in the gaps with assumptions, I can draw conclusions about why the person is behaving that way. And, of course, I immediately begin to have feelings about these conclusions.
• I adopt beliefs about the world - Based on my conclusions, I can now see that there are things within the world that are out of alignment (or in the case of a positive conclusion, in alignment). I am having either negative or positive feelings about the situation. And, at this point, I believe some form of action, whether it is a physical act, spoken words, or other behavior on my part, is necessary.
• I take action based on my beliefs and feelings - I now fully understand the entire situation and take the necessary action: I give the departing driver a negative hand gesture. Or, in the case of a work situation, perhaps I say something that I believe to be appropriate based on my conclusions about the current situation. This is often an emotional, rather than a rational response.

This move up the Ladder of Inference takes milliseconds. It happens all day long. It happens when we interact with people, and when we read the news. It also affects how others see us as they climb their own Ladders of Inference.

There are a few things you can do to help cut down the number of times you run up the ladder:

• Make your thinking process visible to others by explaining your assumptions, interpretations, and conclusions. This is easier to do in the office where there are other people around to help you think through things than it is while you are alone, driving down the road. But, even when you are alone, you can take a moment to examine your journey up the ladder before deciding what action you will take.

• Invite others to test your assumptions and conclusions. When you have the opportunity to work with others, have them help you think things through.
• Use respectful inquiry to help others make their thought processes visible. Use open and nonjudgmental questions, rather than questions that exhibit a bias.
• Explore impasses, and don't agree to disagree too soon. This helps you avoid hidden or unspoken assumptions and conclusions that hide the journey up the Ladder of Inference.

Next time you find yourself having an emotional reaction to something, take the time to notice what triggered this feeling. Observe the events that have occurred. Examine the data you selected. Think about the filters you use to interpret information. Identify your assumptions and conclusions. Understand the root of your feelings. And then select the action you will take.
________________________

By the way, in case you are curious, the fellow driving the beat up sedan was on the way to the hospital with his wife who was seven months pregnant. Her labor started unexpectedly while riding in the car. The hospital was only 2 blocks away. The life of both the mother and the baby were at risk. What he shouted out of his window was "I'm sorry, please excuse me."

What did you think he said?
________________________

Here is a slide, provided by Jim Boylan, PathFinders Consulting Alliance, that can be used when talking through the Ladder of Inference with a group.

The Truth As We Know It

Noted author and expert on organizational culture, Edgar Schein, points out that there are many ways to establish what is “true” for an organization, groups, or individuals within a group. These definitions range from the moralistic to the pragmatic (neither of which is meant to be a prejudicial term), from the more faith or belief based to the scientifically tested theories of truth. Schein lays out six types of truth that may be found within organizations or groups:

• Pure dogma, based on tradition and/or religion: It has always been done this way; it is God’s will; it is written in the Scriptures. 

• Revealed dogma, that is, wisdom based on trust in the authority of wise men, formal leaders, prophets, or kings; our president wants to do it this way; our consultants have recommended that we do it this way; she had the most experience, so we should do what she says. 

• Truth derived by a “rational-legal” process, as when we establish the guilt or innocence of an individual by means of a legal process that acknowledges from the outset that there is no absolute truth, only socially determined truth; this includes majority rule where things are decided by a vote 

• Truth as that which survives conflict and debate: We thrashed it out in three different committees, tested it on the sales force, and the idea is still sound, so we will do it 

• Truth as that which works, the purely pragmatic criterion: Let’s try it out this way and evaluate how we are doing. 

• Truth as established by the scientific method, which becomes, once again, a kind of dogma: Our research shows that this is the right way to do it; we’ve done three surveys and they all show the same thing, so let’s act on them.

(From page 102 – Organizational Culture and Leadership, Second Edition, copyright 1992)

So what is true? We all take it for granted that we know what is true. We express our opinions about truth every day in our behaviors, conversations, assumptions, dress, habits, in short every part of our daily life. We express what we believe to be true about ourselves, our employer, our families, our friends, our city, and our country through the acts of daily life.

We seem to know what is true.

But, if the truth is so easy to see and know, why are there so many arguments over what is true, or how people should live, or which culture should survive and which should cease to exist?

Gaining an understanding of how the organizations you work with, and the people you interact with, define their truth will help you understand where the root of many misunderstandings may lie.

In a recent address to the Alliance for Innovation (June 6, 2008 – Greenville, SC), highly regarded teacher, author and lecturer, Rafe Esquith, said that to be a successful teacher you must be able to approach issues from the perspective of the children you are trying to reach. You must first understand the truths of the world from the child’s perspective.

The same advice would be helpful to anyone trying to affect an organization, group or individual – To be a successful leader, first understand the truths of the world as seen from within your organization, group, or from the individual perspective.