The real truth behind values-based change
My friend Jane runs a business in which she has a handyman visiting client houses. Time and cost management are critical. One day while I was visiting, the handyman came in from a job. He had to return to the same house with equipment he had forgotten the first time. Jane asked if he used a checklist. Clearly he did not. Perhaps this was really the game Eric Berne called “NIGYYSOB”. Maybe he picked up the cue. His values kicked in. Without hesitation the handyman said “I don’t need a checklist”. Then he said “Do you think I don’t know how to do my job?” And then, after a pause, they changed the subject.
A classic defence routine. Make it undiscussable! Then make the fact that it is undiscussable, undiscussable.
We all try to minimise threat and risk of embarrassment. This is one of our deeply entrenched values. In “Strategy, change, and defensive routines”, Chris Argyris describes the pattern of this over-learnt behaviour:
- When challenged with a potentially embarrassing situation we act in ways that undermine what we say we believe.
- Without a moment’s hesitation we cover-up the problem. We make the problem undiscussable.
- Then we immediately cover up the cover-up. We make the undiscussable-ness undiscussable!
- Then everyone involved colludes to bypass the issue. We all pretend it didn’t happen. We sweep the raw sewerage under the carpet, as they say in the soapies.
- We are all trapped.
We are ALL trapped.
Caught up in collusion, the undiscussable and over-protection we are stuck.
In so doing we lose the opportunity to share truth, understand and learn something valuable about ourselves.
We all do this. Defensive behaviour is hard-wired into us, its one of our core values. Defensive behaviour often presents itself as harsh, critical or judgmental thoughts, words or actions. In the politicised corporate world it is mostly ‘thoughts’. When I do a ‘Left Hand Column’ exercise with clients, they are invariably struck by the negativity of their left-hand column comments.
Chris Argyris generalised these ‘values-in-action’ into two Models. The first refers to our mindless, over-learnt response to any difficult interaction. Model I is distinguished by four pervasive values.
- We set out to achieve our purpose. At any cost! We want to be in unilateral control of the interaction.
- We give-away as little as necessary while we take as much as possible. We maximise our winnings and minimise our losses.
- We suppress negative feelings about our behaviour, our responses or the impact of the interaction on those around us. Perhaps we feel like crying or the target of our behaviour is in tears. We all suck it up and regain our composure. The stiff upper lip.
- We behave rationally. In spite of our collusion in an obvious inconsistency we rationalise it all away.
These values trap us in a vicious spiral. They seem to bring relief. It is far easier to keep our shame undiscussable. But they limit our options going forward. With this model in play we present our case and defend it. We judge those involved in the interaction or contributing to a situation and we lay the blame for the situation on people and other factors. When the situation has passed we have deftly avoided any learning and change. We have fallen into a trap. The patterns we have created to avoid embarrassment and produce effective action have negative consequences.
There is another, much better way, Model II. It is possible to have interactions in which valid knowledge is shared and productive reasoning is elevated above personal protection. But Model II requires all players to learn a new set of skills. Many people espouse this model but in reality few use it. Rather, they talk about it but act from Model I. The values in Model II are:
- Seek and give valid, testable information.
- Create and operate from informed choice.
- Vigilantly monitor our implementation of the first two values. We ask how people are receiving our input. We ask about the information we are giving, how we are understanding the information we are receiving and we test the choices we are making.
This may seem easy. You may be forgiven for assuming it is a relatively simple task to move to this way of being. Perhaps it sounds quite reasonable and obvious. Something we can start doing today to make our teams work better.
But it is not. These behaviours require us to consciously, consistently and courageously put aside our fear of exposure and embarrassment and embrace the pain of self-knowledge. And this is hard to do. Like all worthy endeavours, this requires diligence, patience and resilience. And the benefits may be long in coming. It will always be difficult to say “I feel myself wanting to ignore the question. I know I want to make it undiscussable. But if I do, we will all lose out.” This always takes courage.
Chris Argyris summarised his insights of a lifetime of organisational work in ‘Organisational Traps’ (2010). Here he offers a sobering conclusion. First of all, aspiring to reduce traps is not naïve or impractical. However, in spite of all the information science, the traps are still there. And new traps are emerging from deep in the organisation. These traps are “spreading and becoming more powerful regardless of the methods that we use to try to reduce them”.
Therefore there is work to be done. What is your strategy for dealing with these traps?
