Month: November 2021

Fix Those People: Reframing the “Behavior Modification” Problem

Posted on by Maya Mehta

Behavior modification (or behavior change) is a classic human predicament that is reflected in the question: How do I get those people to change their behavior?

You might be a parent dealing with a toddler. Or a government official looking for compliance with a new policy. Or a business consultant trying to implement change in an organization. Whatever the relationship and mission, you will have wondered how exactly to get other people to act in the way you want. Let’s call these behavior modification schemes. Sometimes they are manipulative. But most often they are grounded in a good desire for the behavior you feel is in the group’s best interest.

In the workplace, this problem often takes forms such as:

  • How do you get them to adopt the new mission, the new business, or institutional reality?
  • How do you give them the skills they need for the new world?

Most likely, such questions are being asked by top management with regards to local groups and how they operate on the ground. But given that such behavior modification is notoriously difficult, how can the issue be reframed to create a better possibility?

If You Acted on This Definition

If the goal is taken as behavior modification, then it makes sense to start the modification by communicating and offering training in a big way. You would spend time defining the desirable behaviors, then design or purchase programs to meet those competencies. You would then train managers to conduct the programs and get the top leaders to endorse them. The end result, you should hope, would be the new behaviors being acted out across the organization. Problem solved. Right? Well…maybe not.

Reframing “Behavior Modification”

The thing is that “those people” are very unlikely to be the real problem. To add injury to the insult, wide-scale training will cost a lot and redirect resources away from the real problem. Plus, focusing on people’s deficiencies only reinforces them.

Change is more likely to happen when we capitalize on, and bring to bear people’s capacities, and gifts, and strengths.

Despite the claims of consultants and their intimate organizational champions, large-scale training has had a poor record of changing organizations. There is an uncomfortable truth here. As the economic beneficiaries of the training movement, consultants are reluctant to be accountable for the fact that most large change efforts have led to little change.

Consultants often hold on to the belief that if they had more top management support, things would have been different. But there is a false assumption beneath this belief.

The reality is that effective behavior modification throughout an organization is rarely dictated by a central mandate. It is much more likely to arise in response to circumstances on the ground.

Resist the “Fix” Mentality

This is why you must resist the “fix” mentality, where centralized control becomes the catch-all solution. Rather, local groups deciding what change and learning they need–with an emphasis on their underutilized capacities–is a faster and cheaper path to learning.

Here is the change in mentality you’ll need:

As a consultant, you are not in the behavior modification business but in the community-organizing business: Bringing local groups together, engaging them in questions of purpose, allowing for local variation wherever possible. These practices create relational equity. You can make the bet that this engagement effort will lead to a level of accountability that will make up for any “fixing” benefits that might accrue from the traditional strategy.

In summary, to act in this new frame:

  1. Focus NOT on people’s deficiencies but on their gifts and strengths.
  2. Challenge the assumption that top management is what ultimately drives organizational behavior.
  3. Resist the urge to “fix” things centrally. Instead, let local groups decide what they need to learn to face their reality.

[Adapted from Peter Block, ‘Twelve Questions to the Most Frequently Asked Answers,’ The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion: A Guide to Understanding Your Expertise, 2001, pp. 399-400]

Tom & Jerry: Reframing the “Conflict Resolution” Problem

Posted on by Maya Mehta

Tom and Jerry don’t work well together. Sure, every workplace faces relational difficulties at times. But this has gone beyond cat and mouse games. Their increasingly public tension is dragging the whole team down and disrupting the atmosphere. They simply have to work it out or nothing is going to get done. Conflict resolution is another classic consulting situation in which the presenting problem likely needs reframing, or else it will continue to reoccur.

As we’ve discussed in earlier articles, the majority of generic consulting situations require looking for the underlying dysfunction in the human system as opposed to the surface issue. But in the case of interpersonal conflict, the problem is eminently “human.” So what are some of the ways this common situation can be reframed for new possibilities?

If You Acted On This Definition

Taking the issue at face value, you meet with Tom and Jerry separately to hear their viewpoints, then bring them into the same room and use some mediation process to help them come together. There is sharing of grievances, perhaps some negotiation, and the hope is for the two parties to shake hands and start playing fair again.

Reframing “Conflict Resolution”

Conflict resolution is very valuable; that is not the question. The standard approach may well help in many instances. But there are just as many where the animosity seems insurmountable, and nothing seems to be working. This is where we need a new frame.

The first way to reframe this issue is to be careful to test whether Tom and Jerry want to work it out. Too often, the boss wants a resolution, but the combatants do not.

The simple question is to ask whether each party wants to win or work it out.

If one or both are so entrenched that they just want the other to simply disappear, then don’t move ahead. Conflict resolution strategies depend on a certain level of goodwill. If it does not exist, then surgery may be required.

Secondly, don’t make the mistake of believing that all conflicts are resolvable. They are not, and you lose your credibility, especially in your own eyes, by taking on a task that never had a chance.

Sometimes confronting the players with the belief that you cannot help them raises the stakes and wakes them to the cost of their conflict.

The Third Man

Lastly, consider that what seems to be a problem between two is often a problem among three. The person who asks us to get involved is often a player too. Be open to the possibility of a dysfunctional triangle and try to understand the role of the sponsor of the mediation, who might be unknowingly keeping Tom and Jerry at odds. If this is the case, Tom and Jerry will feel it. Ask them what role your sponsor plays in their relationship and what impact that has.

In summary, to act within this frame:

  1. Test whether the combatants themselves desire conflict resolution.
  2. Challenge the assumption that the conflict is in fact resolvable.
  3. Understand the role of the sponsor of the mediation.

[Adapted from Peter Block, ‘Twelve Questions to the Most Frequently Asked Answers,’ The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion: A Guide to Understanding Your Expertise, 2001, p. 400]

Define What You Mean: Reframing the “Clear Vision” Problem

Posted on by Maya Mehta

When tasked with implementing change in your organization, you may have found yourself in this position: The goal of change has been shared, presented, and discussed repeatedly. Yet you keep hearing the claim, “We need a clear vision of what we are moving toward.” 

This is another classic consulting situation, and it presents itself as a problem of definition. For instance, how do you define the difference between change and transformation? 

How do you define leadership, empowerment, the new economy, or the role of a middle manager? 

What is the new role of human resources? 

But for all the clamor about wanting definitions, many times, what is truly murky is the question, not so much the answers. This is an indicator that you need to reframe the issue at hand in order to get to the root. Let’s look at some thoughts on how to reframe the “clear vision” problem. 

If You Acted On This Definition

Taking the “clear vision” complaint at face value, you would spend a lot of time trying to define what is new in terms that people will understand. You would write it down. You would produce manuals and short brochures written in “lay terms” to describe that which is essentially a change in consciousness. Then, the ultimate attempt at creating a definition is the competency model: a comprehensive listing of the skills needed to be fully proficient at a job or role. Have you ever seen one that any human being could achieve?

Reframing The “Clear Vision” Problem

To reframe the clear vision problem, you need to see that the request for definition is often not a problem of clarity but an expression of disagreement. 

It is fine to make one attempt at definition. But most of the time, we have already done that, and yet the question persists. In this case, the thing to focus on is the request for us to define the term. If a definition is necessary, then what if you let those who ask the questions struggle with the answer for themselves?

What if the request for a clear vision has to do with roles? For years middle managers have wanted to know what their new role is. Well, after all this time, if they can’t figure it out, maybe there is no new role. The principle here is that you (as the questioner) have to translate language into your own setting and into your own experience. Sure, others can help a little, but they cannot do it for you. 

 

Learning Clarity Through Ambiguity

Dennis Bakke, head of AES, a very enlightened company that produces electrical power around the world, likes ambiguity in language. He says that if people are unclear about what something means, it forces them into a conversation about it, and that conversation leads to learning. 

Hearing a definition from another leads to memorization, not learning. The only definition that endures is the one that I myself have created. 

If people are unclear about what something means, it forces them into a conversation about it, and that conversation leads to learning.

Lastly, in this situation, it is important to realize that the wish for a clear vision is another form of the wish for safety. It is the desire to know where you are going before you go there. It is a desire for measurable, controlled outcomes. Ultimately, it is a longing for safety that does not truly exist. 

In the end, defining terms is an academic diversion from the more fundamental human questions involving risk, purpose, courage, and adventure. But here is the thing: real safety comes from the experience of discovery, acting in the face of your fears–not waiting to act until your fears have disappeared. It is not until you try something that you will realize that you will survive it.

So To Act In This New Frame For Clear Vision:

  1. Realize that persistent requests for definition are not a lack of clear vision but an expression of disagreement.
  2. Invite the person asking for the definition to struggle with it for themselves. This leads to conversations in which they will truly learn rather than memorize.
  3. Understand that the desire for a clear definition is masking a desire for safety. But real safety is found in acting in the face of our fears.

[Adapted from Peter Block, ‘Twelve Questions to the Most Frequently Asked Answers,’ The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion: A Guide to Understanding Your Expertise, 2001, pp. 401-402] 

Refine your skills, and define what you mean. Start Flawless Consulting today.