Can we take positivity too far?

Many years ago, there was a period of dislocation in my work life and I was suddenly scrabbling to relaunch my independent career with no work on the horizon. At the time we had very little savings and I was the main earner for our household of four. I was feeling worried and anxious.

A friend, who lived abroad, was briefly in the country and we had a chance to catch up. She asked how I was, and I started to explain my financial worries and work concerns. Abruptly she cut across me to say, ‘But when you’re working you earn good money, right?’

I can only assume this was meant make me feel better, but it had the opposite effect. I felt like I’d been slapped across the face and got the clear message that she wasn’t interested in hearing about my feelings and problems. It being clear that I wasn’t going to get the sympathetic hearing I was seeking, I moved the conversation on. But I never forgot the experience, it hurt.

When this happened, I couldn’t quite put my finger on what had gone wrong, given that her comment was, relatively speaking, correct. I didn’t know how to name what had happened, but I can now identify it as an experience of ‘toxic positivity.’

Toxic Positivity

Toxic positivity insists on ‘looking on the bright side’ but in a way that is disconnected from the current context, that dismisses the validity of someone’s current feelings in favour of a demand that they have ‘happy emotions.’

As well as doing it to others we can do it to ourselves, feeling we have to be positive about everything all the time. This can spill into a belief that we have to deny feelings that are difficult to deal with such as anger and hurt, that we should be happy all the time and at if we aren’t, something is wrong.

In his recent book Sukhvinder Pabial examines how our awareness of the many benefits of positivity, and desire to help people experience positivity, can, through a misinterpretation of the idea of positivity and abuse of the idea, spill over into toxic positivity and more.

The Positive Continuum model

This model (reprinted with the author, Sukhvinder Pabial’s permission) starts by identifying how when we are working effectively with positivity, events can be helpfully reframed in a more positive way, creating motivation and inspiration and enabling people to move on.

A lot of coaching works to reframe like this. The hurt or difficult situation is acknowledged, and empathy demonstrated, before a sensitive attempt is made to help the person start to look at the situation differently. Importantly, this helping isn’t based on ‘telling’ people there is a silver lining, but by helping them to find, see or create such for themselves. Appreciative Inquiry works at a similar way for coaching and larger systems.

Toxic positivity by contrast is defined as ‘uncalled for solutions and lack of empathy,’ which characterises the response of my friend to my situation. While it might arise because someone is short on empathy, I wonder whether this behaviour is sometimes exhibited by people, perhaps aspiring practitioners, who have grasped a general message about how ‘feeling good is good for you’, but lack the skills to apply it in a given situation.

Relentless Positivity

Sukhvinder extends the model to identify yet another positivity position, that of ‘relentless positivity’ which is ‘persistent and unregulated positivity’.

There was a fad a while back for organizations to issue statements such as ‘there is no such word as “can’t” in this organization!’ This would be an example of a culture of relentless positivity. Bad news is just unacceptable and not heard. As Sukhvinder explains, it is pushed back against with ‘we have to make this happen’, and ‘we must find solutions’ type statements.

There is a fantastic example of this: the film documentary of the fiasco of a the Fyre festival: FYRE: the greatest party that never happened. For those who haven’t yet seen it, the organiser resists all the attempts of experienced festival organisers to highlight various problems and issues that need to be addressed, insisting everything will work. He resists all attempts to call off the festival in good time to limit the PR damage and in the event nothing works and it’s a disaster, so he ends up cancelling it so late some guests have already arrived. That is relentless positivity in action.

I have occasionally come across an organisational culture that demonstrates relentless positivity in another way where its just not permissible to have, or to acknowledge in others, difficult feelings. You could call it happy, clappy. This type of culture makes it very hard to have reconciling and healing conversations as the feelings that need to be named and addressed to affect restoration of a relationship can’t be acknowledged in the first place!

The time continuum

These positions are represented across a timeframe. So ‘reframing’ is a specific activity in a specific context. Toxic positivity can be a repeated, habitual way of responding when others experience problems and difficulties, while relentless positivity is a sustained culture or way of behaving that denies the possibility of the non-positive outcome.

As our awareness of the benefits of positivity grows, along with our eagerness to help everyone benefit from experiencing positivity, I find this model very useful in alerting us to the dangers of unthinking and unregulated attempts to ‘be positive’ or to inject positivity into a situation.

My thanks to Sukhvinder for his insights into this interesting area. The model and diagram come from his excellent and highly recommended book The Resilience Handbook, available from our online store.

Other Resources

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Co-Creating Planning Teams For Dialogic OD’, published by BMI Publishing, ‘Positive Psychology in Business’, published by Pavillion, ‘Positive Psychology at Work’ and ‘Positive Psychology and Change’ both published by Wiley. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management', published by Kogan Page.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organisations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

If you want to know more about implementing approaches and processes that positively affect people’s happiness, engagement, motivation, morale, productivity and work relationships, see Sarah’s positive psychology books.

More blog posts categorised as ‘Thought Provoking’ 

Could it be the active recruitment of incompetent men that stops women getting to the top?

The central cause, argues Tomas Chasmorro-Premuzic, of the low numbers of women recruited into leadership, ranging from 36% in bottom tier management to only 6% at CEO level, isn’t that they aren’t competitive, assertive, bold, talented or in some other ill-defined way, enough like men; but rather that a persistent systematic mistake is made during the recruitment process. A mistake that leads to many of the opportunities, up to 74% according to one survey quoted, being filled with incompetent men.

Hence the question isn’t: how can we get more women into management, but rather, how do we stop so many incompetent men filling the available positions?

No one sets out to hire incompetent leaders, so how can this happen? The answer lies in the difference between what is attractive at the selection process and what is effective in a leader.

Why do men get selected more often?

When looking for leadership potential, many instinctively look for behaviour that suggests a forceful and dominant character. This attentional focus on forcefulness and dominance reinforces the preferential selection of men for leadership in two ways. Firstly, this behaviour, along with the traits that support it, are found more often in men than in women. And secondly, when they are displayed by women they can be frowned upon. Such women can be dismissed as being too forceful or domineering to be considered as good leadership material. Yet, in a classic Catch-22 situation, if they don’t display this type of behaviour they are also not perceived as being suitably leader-like. Hence it is frequently forceful and dominant presenting men who get selected into leadership positions.

Research shows, however, that those who are most likely to appear forceful and dominant, are also those who are more likely to self-centred, entitled and narcissistic. All of which are related to the personality traits of narcissism and psychopathy, and none of which are good predictors of effective leadership behaviour.

In this way, it becomes apparent that there is a fundamental, and negatively impactful, difference between the personality traits and behaviours it takes to be chosen as a leader, and those it takes to be effective as a leader. The essential problem is that the traits that are taken as signs of leadership talent in men, are the very same that will eventually predict their downfall as leaders. In other words when considering male candidates, clear character flaws are mistaken for attractive leadership qualities. How does this happen?

The mistaken appointment of narcissists and psychopaths

Chamorro-Premuzic explains how this mistake is made. One important aspect is that confidence is taken as a proxy for competence. However, there is no relationship between confidence and competence. Most of us skew a little to over-confidence, it’s normal and healthy. But excessive overconfidence becomes dangerous and, statistically speaking, men are significantly more likely than women to display excessive overconfidence in their abilities. And while confidence is commonly regarded as the most important quality for a leader, research suggests that in fact it is less important than expertise, intelligence, hard-work, connections and even luck!

This over-confidence that we can find so attractive has its roots in two particular personality traits, narcissism and psychopathology. Narcissism and psychopathology are both more common in leaders than in the general population. For example, psychopathy is present in 4-20% of people in senior management roles, compared to 1% in the general population. Narcissism also runs at about 1% in the general population yet is estimated to be 5% amongst CEOs. By accident, this is what we end up recruiting for. Why, how does it happen?

Narcissists are master are masters of impression management, great at conveying confidence (and remember we use confidence as a proxy for competence). At the same time the advertised rewards of leadership, lucrative compensation, fancy titles and the other signs of success, could have been purpose designed to attract them in their droves. Meanwhile courage and risk-taking often coexist with psychopathology, enabling psychopaths to demonstrate striking audacity and resilience under stress, for example. They also often display a high verbal ability, meaning they can be eloquent and persuasive and tend to come across as charming and charismatic. What’s not to like, then, at the interview stage?

What happens when they become leaders

However, both narcissists and psychopaths, while brilliant at getting the role, often perform poorly thereafter. For examples psychopaths, once in the role, tend to operate passively, failing to fulfil basic management tasks such as evaluating performance, giving accurate feedback or rewarding employees. They don’t hold teams accountable for their performance and are likely to prove unable to motivate others. They are loathe to accept blame and responsibility for the consequences of their actions. As overconfident leaders they can be immune to negative feedback.

Narcissists, meanwhile, are significantly prone to counterproductive behaviour such as bullying, fraud, white-collar crime and harassment, including sexual harassment. And while they are good at dreaming big, they are less good at delivering on that dream. What to do instead then?

Going forward

Firstly, it’s worth pointing out that, given this picture, the last thing we should be doing, if we want to improve the quality of our leaders, is to help women contenders become ‘more like the men’!

 Secondly, Emotional Quotient (EQ), or emotional intelligence is acknowledged as the best single measure of people skills, which are key to getting the best out of other people, the distilled task of leadership. And people with a higher EQ are generally more effective in leadership roles. This is the proxy we should be using to predict leadership success, not levels of confidence.

Thirdly, the three important leadership competencies that are enabled by higher EQ are found at higher rates in women. These are transformational leadership, personal effectiveness and self-awareness.

So, in essence, we need to

• Stop using confidence as a proxy for competence

• Stop being dazzled by attractive qualities at the point of selection, and select instead for the personality traits and other factors that predict success once in the role

• Avoid prompting narcissists and psychopaths to positions of leadership

• Stop looking at leadership potential through a gendered lens

• Start to appreciate some of the qualities that are more typically, but obviously not exclusively, found in woman that correlate with successful leadership, and look for them in our selection processes.

Those interested to explore this topic further are referred to Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2019) Harvard Review Business Press. All statistics quoted and other assertions made are referenced in this text.

Other Resources

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Co-Creating Planning Teams For Dialogic OD’, published by BMI Publishing, ‘Positive Psychology in Business’, published by Pavillion, ‘Positive Psychology at Work’ and ‘Positive Psychology and Change’ both published by Wiley. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management', published by Kogan Page.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organisations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

If you want to know more about implementing approaches and processes that positively affect people’s happiness, engagement, motivation, morale, productivity and work relationships, see Sarah’s positive psychology books.

More blog posts categorised as ‘Thought Provoking’ 

THREE CHANGE STRATEGIES IN ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT: DATA-BASED, HIGH ENGAGEMENT, AND GENERATIVE BY GERVASE R. BUSHE & SARAH LEWIS

Please find below an article co-authored by Gervase Bushe and myself recently accepted for publication in the Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Jan 2023 - Sarah Lewis

Bushe, G.R. and Lewis, S. (2023), "Three change strategies in organization development: data-based, high engagement and generative", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2022-0229

Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited. This AAM is provided for your own personal use only. It may not be used for resale, reprinting, systematic distribution, emailing, or for any other commercial purpose without the permission of the publisher.

Working with the Organisation’s Shadowside: Helping organisations discuss the undiscussable?

At the recent EU AI network meeting some colleagues and I fell into a conversation about working with the organisational shadowside. I thought it was interesting enough to share.

What is the organisational shadowside?

While discussion our work, we identified a common experience, when working with faith organisations, of encountering such a strong surface ‘story’ about what it meant to be a good person of this faith that it was impossible for the organisation to talk about actions and feelings in the organisation that didn’t fit that story. In one example it was the hurt, anger, betrayal, resentment and other difficult feelings following a round of redundancies that had taken place the previous year that was unmentionable. In another it was the difficulty of working and living within the constraints of monastic vows that was pushed under the carpet. The challenge we encountered wasn’t the stories themselves, it was the sense that we were being drawn into a secret or ‘shadow’ conversation that couldn’t be fitted into the accepted organisational story.

Another colleague expanded the conversation by added her experience working with ‘vocational’ organisations like charities, noting how she had found that an excess of ‘passion’ about the work or the clients was used to excuse bullying behaviour. Of course, we noted, all organisations have topics and parts of their history that are difficult to address, but these types of organisations seemed to have an extra factor of difficulty in acknowledging and owning organisational imperfections.

What is particular about these organizations?

Reflecting on this led us to the observation that these organisations could all be described as striving towards a greater good. In a way the organizations didn’t just want to do good, they needed to be good. This purity of spirit allowed little room for imperfections of spirit. But the organizations were full of people, and people have plenty of imperfections. It was this, we postulated, that made it hard for the organisation and the people in it to bring their stories together. The lived experience of troubling feelings and actions was pushed into the shadow.

So as Appreciative Practitioners, our challenge was, how to bring these two conversations into the same space in a fruitful and appreciative way? We needed to be able to have a conversation that acknowledged and owned people’s experience of the difficulties that come with being human that also honoured the organisation’s story of itself as essentially ‘good’. Somehow, within the container of a specific safe space, we needed it become permissible to name and share the challenging parts of life in this group while upholding the values and beliefs of the organisation about its purpose and its ‘spirit’ of being. The organisation, and the people, needed to be able to own the whole.

We felt that this idea of permission, permission to tell the untellable stories and of being heard, was key to joining the two conversations together. We discussed and shared different approaches and techniques we had used, recognising that what worked in one context wouldn’t necessarily have the same impact in another; that we needed, in all situations, to enact situational sensitivity.

Some of the approaches we identified that we had found helpful in the past were

• Validating but not amplifying. One of us had found that creating an opportunity for people to share difficult stories in individual interviews meant that they could tell their story of the ‘bad things’ going on before the group event. This meant that the story/ experience could be heard and acknowledged, without being amplified within a group setting. It was also noted that the sense of having ‘deposited ‘the story with the facilitator beforehand seemed to act to reduce the anxiety and so likelihood of someone being driven to just blurt something out. Instead, the facilitator could create opportunities for people to choose to share difficult material within a generally appreciative and positive oriented event, at an appropriate time.

• Problem and Solution Tree. One of us had also worked with a ‘problem tree’ and ‘solution tree’ process, drawing on the work of David Shaked, which worked to bring both problem and aspiration visibly into the same space in relation to each other.

• Working with hopes and fears. The allowed the fears (of getting together to have a tricky conversation for example) to be named. It was found that allowing them to be named worked, in the specific context described, to lessen their strength and their impact. Naming and recording these hopes and fears also allowed for regularly monitoring of changes in group concerns and helped appreciation that hopes were being realised and fears ameliorated.

In addition,

• We noted in these situations it can be helpful to work in small groups a lot, and of course, to always be focused on creating questions that move the discussion and conversation towards connection, creation and compassion.

• We also reminded ourselves of the value, frequently, in checking assumptions underlying conversational contributions and people’s mental maps

• And we noted the importance of exercising contextual intelligence. That is, recognising that the story is bigger than the people in the room and systems, for example, often mirror the tensions in the bigger system.

Since our conversation I have been reminded of how story is the key resource with which we are so often working. The question often is how we can help the group move from its current story or stories towards something that is inclusive of a wider experience. One that recognises forces at play beyond those in front of us, or that recognises good intentions can be behind bad actions.

I find this an interesting topic, and I hope this has been interesting for you too.

Other Resources

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Co-Creating Planning Teams For Dialogic OD’, ‘Positive Psychology in Business’ ‘Positive Psychology at Work’ and ‘Positive Psychology and Change’ both published by Wiley. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management'.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organisations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

If you want to know more about implementing approaches and processes that positively affect people’s happiness, engagement, motivation, morale, productivity and work relationships, see Sarah’s positive psychology books.

More blog posts categorised as ‘Positive Organisational Culture’ 

Highlights from ABP conference

At the ABP conference on the 10th and 11th of November, I was struck by the professionalism of the presenters and the high standard of their content. I wanted to share a few of the ‘nuggets’ I picked up with you.

The ‘know it all’ and ‘learn it all’ culture difference

Matthew Syed introduced these two terms, the first reflecting a fixed mindset. The ‘know it all’ mindset can have some adverse effects:

• Everyone wants to look like the smartest person in the room, it’s all about showing off what you know, not being interested in what others might know.

• The competitive attitude undermines psychological safety.

• The need to be right can lead to ‘blame the customers’ mindset.

• And, as very often ‘people like us’ sound more intelligent, this attitude can lead to a monoculture in the organization.

Not great then!

The ‘learn it all ‘culture, more like a growth mindset, is much more interested in a diversity of knowledge and resources in the room, including the tactic knowledge that is part and parcel of different life experiences. It is this that enhances the ‘granular capacity’ of a group or organization to understand the diverse world of their customers and other stakeholders. In essence, we need a growth mindset and diversity to solve complex interdisciplinary problems. I thought these two terms very useful to summarise the difference.

Some fascinating takeaways

The 2-for-the-price-of-1 employee

Andrew Whyatt- Sames, introduced this concept of an employee which I hadn’t come across before. With a 2-4-1 employee, the employer gets the unpaid services of the partner at home doing all the domestic work enabling the employee to work ‘as if’ he or she had no other responsibilities. An arrangement which, not only takes us back to the 1950s, but, of course, also disadvantages all those employees who have to carry their own load at home.

‘Be nice to them or they’ll leave’

Summed up the message to bosses trying to revert to the good old pre-covid days of 7/5 office attendance. That ship has sailed.

Poor mental health on average costs employers £1652 per employee per annum

So asserted Maria Gardener while also sharing that Deloittes found a 5:1 return on investment in well being in their 2020 research. However, it depends how you spend the money. One size does not fit all, and an over reliance on sticky plasters and panic stations has little long-term benefit. Wellbeing needs to extend to financial wellbeing. You can offer your employees resilience workshops and mindfulness apps until they are coming out of their ears, but if you don’t pay them enough to make ends meet, then all a bit beside the point.

Ghost Meetings

These are non-existent meetings that desperate people book just for just to give themselves space to recharge in overpacked office days.

How to hack happiness

Amanda Potter from Betalent’s took us on a deep dive into the neurophysiology of both happiness and stress, with great suggestions for how to ‘hack’ happiness. I was delighted to see I was already using so many

• Snacking on nuts and seeds supports acetylcholine production, a rebalancing chemical

• Celebrating little wins produces dopamine. Yeah, I did it, I changed the filters on the hoover!

• Chocolate. Okay, so my go to is a Lint Easter Bunny rather than worthy dark chocolate but I’m sure its just as good for the serotonin

• And I’ve recently discovered Epsom salts in a hot bath – it was on the list,  honest!

The decisive amongst us are 12 times more likely to be high performing than those plagued by procastrination.

Psychological safety

Amanda and her team undertook some research identifying the characteristics of psychologically safe teams or spaces, which include such things such as

• Feeling personally connected,

• Feeling included,

• Appreciating and being appreciated.

While in psychologically unsafe teams or spaces people want to please, feel they have to be nice all the time, defer to leadership, are consensus driven, and seek consistency. All of which leads us back round to our opening idea of the ‘know it all culture’ with its premium on people who think like us and a lack of dissent.

 My thanks to everyone. It was a great event, really one of the better conferences out there.

Other Resources

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Co-Creating Planning Teams For Dialogic OD’, ‘Positive Psychology in Business’ ‘Positive Psychology at Work’ and ‘Positive Psychology and Change’ both published by Wiley. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management'.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organisations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

If you want to know more about implementing approaches and processes that positively affect people’s happiness, engagement, motivation, morale, productivity and work relationships, see Sarah’s positive psychology books.

More blog posts categorised as ‘Thought Provoking’ 

How Positive Psychology Can Promote Children’s Wellbeing and other Benefits

By Ella Jackson-Jones

Marketing Assistant for Appreciating Change and part-time Nanny, writing from her perspective as a Nanny

As a childcare provider I see the benefits of incorporating positive psychology techniques and practices in all aspects of children’s lives from a young age. It helps support their emotional development, promote wellbeing, and build resilience that they can carry with them into adulthood. Generation Alpha children will have to navigate an ever more competitive, demanding and increasingly complex education system and job market, as well as cope with being embedded in social media with access to 24/7 news. They are growing up in a world of globally connected new technologies which will become part of their everyday lives, and that will ultimately shape their attitudes and expectations of the world.

Young children need to learn the skills necessary for managing their emotions. Adults who can model this are essential in helping to shape children’s emotional development. There is a strong link between mental health concerns in children and their ability to regulate their emotions. Assisting children to cultivate positive emotions helps to mitigate mental health issues not just for them but for future generations also.

Poor emotional regulation can manifest as behavioural or mental health issues in children such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, mood disorders, sleep disorders and neurotic disorders. Children are affected by life’s adversities, in particular those from lower socio-economic backgrounds or those who have experienced high levels of trauma, are more at risk of developing a mental health condition, with 1 in 6 children aged between 5 and 16 currently likely to do so. In addition, 39.2% of 6- to 16-year-olds have experienced a deterioration in mental health since 2017. Educators and parents are seeing the consequences of both an education system, and traditional parenting styles, that ignore the importance of the mental health needs of children.

An answer to some of the issues faced by children may lie within the teachings of Positive Psychology. It is already known that wellbeing is a clear indicator of academic achievement, success, and satisfaction in later life (Wise up: prioritizing wellbeing in schools) and it is possible to support the wellbeing of children through our interactions with them both in and out of school. Research into the effects of positive psychology interventions in young people is still in its infancy, however there are systematic reviews that suggest these interventions benefit the wellbeing of children now and the children of future generations.

Social Emotional Learning (SEL) is a method that aids both children and adults to recognise, understand, and manage their emotions. SEL targets 5 areas; self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills and responsible decision making. In time, working with SEL, children learn to establish and achieve goals, express empathy for others, engage in healthy relationships and make responsible decisions. . The benefits of this kind of intervention include better academic performance, improved attitudes and behaviours, greater motivation to learn, deeper commitment to school, increased time devoted to schoolwork, fewer negative behaviours, decreased disruptive class behaviours, reduced emotional distress, fewer reports of student depression, anxiety, stress, and social withdrawal. Organisations such as the Education Policy Institute are fighting to have SEL integrated into the national curriculum in the UK.

Another way we can attend to the social and emotional needs of children is by supporting them in the fostering of good and healthy relationships with others since the quality of our relationships affects our ability to have a happy and fulfilling life.

There are always ways you can practice positive psychology techniques with your children at home. I have listed some ideas below.

• The Good Things List – Each day you can work together to write a list of 3 good things that happened that day which children can refer back to as they grow up.

• Relationships – Make sure children spend quality time with parents, special relatives, and friends.

• Random acts of kindness – Encourage your children to do one act of kindness each day and talk about how doing nice things for other people make you feel.

• The Gratitude Jar – Assist your child to write down 5 things each day that they are grateful for and pop them in a jar, each week you can reflect on all the wonderful things they appreciate.

• Goal chart – Create some short- and long-term achievable goals. Keep reviewing them and reflect on how you feel as your achievement list grows.

• The strengths list – Discuss and write down your children’s strengths. Focus on some each day to help them improve their day or to help someone else.

• Savouring the moment – Take a part of your child’s routine that you both enjoy and slow it down so you can really enjoy the moment.

It is possible and important for you to provide the tools and scaffolding children need to look after their mental health and wellbeing throughout their lives. By teaching them to focus on the positives and create happiness from the little things will help children be more resilient in times of adversity and mitigate against mental health conditions in the future.

The following sources helped inform this paper

• Mental Health of Children and Young People in England, NHS Digital, 2020, accessed, https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/mental-health-of-children-and-young-people-in-england/2020-wave-1-follow-up

• Mental Health of Children and Young People in England, NHS Digital, 2021, accessed, https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/mental-health-of-children-and-young-people-in-england/2021-follow-up-to-the-2017-survey

• Young Minds ‘Wise Up’ prioritizing wellbeing in schools. www.youngminds.org.uk

•  Social and emotional learning: An evidence review and synthesis of key issues – Education Policy Institute, 4th November 2021, accessed, https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/social-and-emotional-learning

 Other Resources

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Co-Creating Planning Teams For Dialogic OD’, ‘Positive Psychology in Business’ ‘Positive Psychology at Work’ and ‘Positive Psychology and Change’ both published by Wiley. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management'.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organisations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

If you want to know more about implementing approaches and processes that positively affect people’s happiness, engagement, motivation, morale, productivity and work relationships, see Sarah’s positive psychology books.

More blog posts categorised as ‘Thought Provoking’ 

Are we having fun yet? Why having fun is no frivolous matter

When I began this article, I was pondering why had I put myself through the mildly stressful (dynamic pricing of the chalet booking, the race to book limited places on fun activities), definitely expensive and logistically challenging experience of organising an over-in-the-blink-of-an-eye holiday for the group of adults ranging in age from 26 to 75 who currently constitute my family? The answer, of course, is that I keenly anticipated having some fun. Why though? What does having fun do for us? And what, exactly, is it? 

According to Catherine Price, author of The Power of Fun, the feeling of fun is one of exhilaration or light-heartedness, of being energised and alive.  She interviewed 1500 adults about their experiences of fun, and identified three factors common to real, restorative fun: playfulness, connection and flow. In other words, it is within our power to create fun in many different situations, rather than only when we are engaged in specified ‘fun’ activities.

True fun, she enlarges, is about feeling a lightness of spirit, feeling engaged with another person or people, and being absorbed in the activity. Price suggests we don’t necessarily need all three components to be having fun, but certainly one or two. This explains why it is quite possible to be rowing an open boat in a light drizzle towards a wet campsite with two small damp children, and still be having fun! 

Why might fun be important to us even as adults? One answer comes from Barbara Fredrickson and her broaden and build theory. She asked, scientifically, what positive emotions were good for, and came up with some answers. When we are ‘feeling good’, for instance when we are having fun, we are boosting our resourcefulness and resilience for other, more difficult, occasions. A sense of achievement can boost self-confidence, new skills learnt might come in handy some other time - one of our party on this holiday took his first steps to playing bowls and pool, good for social skills and a confidence boost. Two others took up tennis racquets for the first time in yonks and rediscovered the delight of that skill as well as experiencing the pleasure of beating me hollow!). Fun also fosters relationships, allowing us to feel close to others as we laugh together, or share moments of achievement.

Price also exposes a widespread myth: that ‘fun’ is the shadow side of ‘work’ and so having fun is effortless, suggesting that your leisure time will just fill itself with fun activities of its own accord. Price notes instead, that unless you figure out how you want to fill that leisure time, you risk experiencing existential despair when the void within yourself becomes manifest. I know this feeling very well, as I suspect do many others. And I think she is right, fun isn’t just an absence of non-fun activity, it is a positive thing in its own right. It has to be sought and earnt.

Understanding fun in this distinct, positive way means you can work out when you have had fun in the past, and then proactively make more space for it in the future. With this orientation we discover, as with most things, that the more we look for opportunities to experience fun, the more we find. These can be both small moments of fun that we might have missed, and bigger opportunities to make things more fun, or more things fun. 

My own observation is that some people have a real knack of making things fun. My own partner, the 75-year-old, has a strong competitive streak, but is also great at teasing and joshing which takes the intensity of the competitiveness down a few notches, making activities much more fun for everyone else. One of my sons, who could beat the two of us armed only with a table tennis bat, plays badminton with his ‘parental units’ once a week. I marvel at his willingness to do this, wondering what’s in it for him. Applying Price’s thinking I realise it’s the sense of connection and engagement we all create by not taking ourselves too seriously that makes it enjoyable for all of us, skill levels be damned. And he does consistently experience the pleasure of beating his dad!

It’s interesting to note is that all of these things: playfulness, connection and flow are active states. Passive activities, watching a good film for example, might be relaxing and enjoyable but are unlikely to transport you like good fun can.

How to use this knowledge?

·      Think about your ‘micro-doses’ of fun. Five minutes playing with pets works for some people. Making someone laugh. Making funny faces to amuse a stranger’s baby (exercise with caution, but usually appreciated by harassed parents). Brief conversations with strangers in shops, at bus stops.

·      Notice when your battery is running down and you need a ‘fun’ recharge

·      Identify which of your friends are ‘fun magnets’, plan to hitch a ride on their fun train.

·      Make sure you are rested enough to be able to have fun. Being distracted, over-tired, over-stressed, or highly self-critical, are not good places from which to start to try to have fun, even though having fun will probably help with them! And resentment, says Price, is a sure-fire fun killer!

·      Avoid the trap of turning fun into work, and, most importantly

·      Don’t allow fun to leach imperceptibly out of your life just because life got busy.

The launch pad for this article was an excellent article by Elle Hunt published in the G2 section of The Guardian on Wednesday 26th Jan 2022. She in turn called on the book by Catherine Price, The Power of Fun

 Other Resources

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Co-Creating Planning Teams For Dialogic OD’, ‘Positive Psychology in Business’ ‘Positive Psychology at Work’ and ‘Positive Psychology and Change’ both published by Wiley. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management'.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organisations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

If you want to know more about implementing approaches and processes that positively affect people’s happiness, engagement, motivation, morale, productivity and work relationships, see Sarah’s positive psychology books.

More blog posts categorised as ‘Thought Provoking’ 

Some Challenges Posed by Hybrid Working and How We Can Meet Them

Hybrid working, for many a necessity induced by lockdown, is rapidly becoming a work pattern of choice for the future. Goldman Sachs are one of the few organizations so far to have declared against the trend with their boss David Solomon rejecting the idea of remote working, labelling it an “aberration”. The more common view seems to be that the working pattern has changed for good. Google, for example, expects 20% of staff to work from home permanently in future, while Microsoft is to make remote working a permanent option. This shift towards more flexible working patterns poses some tough questions for managers and leaders.

How is it being done?

1.     Who gets to work in a hybrid way?

An educational organisation I know identified this as a key question as staff began to return to working on the campus after the year of home based working. Each function’s stakeholders had different expectations of instant access, face-to-face contact. It was clear that the same offer of hybrid working couldn’t be made to all staff. How to decide? Nationwide answered this dilemma earlier this year, saying that the 13,000 of its staff who do not work in branches would be allowed to work from wherever they wanted, making for a very clear two-tier role-based system driven by a need for customer access. Is this a fair way to decide? Will staff agree? Which raises a key challenge, whatever route forward is decided, how to ensure it is fair?

2.     How to make it fair?

We know that people’s experience of working from home during lockdown has been highly variable. Some have really appreciated it while for others it’s been a seemingly endless struggle of juggling demands and battling technology. Estate agents report that many people have moved out of the city centres, thrilled at green spaces and lower rents while others, it seems, have experienced extreme pressure on their mental health from isolation or family pressures, and can’t wait to get back to the order and sociability of office life. Any system that assumes the impact of a move to permanent hybrid working is the same for everyone, is unlikely to be perceived as fair.

3.     What will the impact be for the organization?

The big advantages of everyone coming into a central working space tend to be relative ease of communication and information flow (I did say relative!). It is easy to reconfigure the network as needed: call everyone together, split them into small groups, create ad hoc spaces for people to meet and congregate. In this way information snippets get passed on while relationships are stoked and nurtured. Virtual platforms do their best, but they are not the same. The hybrid organization will have to pay special attention to the challenges of connection and communication. It is very easy for those remote from the buzzing centre to miss out on accidental conversations and to quickly feel they’re out of the loop. Once they start feeling disconnected, they can quickly start disconnecting.

4.     How to ensure equality of access to opportunity?

Many of the benefits and perks of working can involve being in the right place at the right time to seize an opportunity, whether that’s an opening to meet a client, a chance to go to a trade show, or an invitation to give a presentation at a meeting. If you hear your colleague or boss fretting about being unable to be in two places at once, you can make the offer to help out. Face to face training sessions often have incidental network boosting benefits that can be nurtured and developed in the coffee break. We can beam colleagues in for the training but enabling them to roam freely in the breaks is impossible to replicate. How to ensure that the more remote workers don’t become out of sight, out of mind when a career-enhancing opportunity arises unexpectedly?

5.     How to ensure hybrid-working doesn’t become hybrid-washing?

It’s no secret that large organizations have spotted a money saving opportunity. HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank, is moving to a hybrid model and plans to cut its property footprint by as much as 40% in the long term, while Lloyds Banking Group has said it will bring in working from home as a permanent lifestyle change, allowing it to cut 20% of its office space. Who will benefit from these savings? It is important that organizations are honest that their motivations to elevate hybrid working from an emergency fix to a modus operandi are multiple and varied and not solely driven by a desire to increase flexibility for staff, if they want the initiative to maintain credibility.

6.     How will the organization continue to develop?

There has been a move over the last thirty odd years to recognize organizations as systems and to work with them as such. Approaches such as Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogic OD are predicated on the benefits of getting the whole system together to address development challenges and opportunities as an inter-connected, inter-dependent living system. How can this be done if people aren’t able to gather in the same physical space?

What helps?

1.     Pay attention to perceptions of fairness

Equity theory and research has made it plain that perception of fairness is key to feeling fairly treated; and that are perceptions of fairness are made by comparison by those around us. We compare what we put and what we get in return against what we see others put in and receive. We also value different things, and so experience their loss or gain differently. My son, who regards work as a necessary evil and values his leisure time highly, had to continue to go into work during lockdown and thought it mightily unfair that many of his mates were on furlough. Many of them though, were bored and lonely, drifting from day to day and would rather have been busy with work. All this means that while stakeholder expectations might dictate who can work away from the central office, attention will need to be paid to the specific impact for individuals. The greater the choice individuals have in accepting changes in their working patterns, the more individual preferences can be accommodated, and the greater the attention paid to perceptions of fairness, then the greater the likelihood of maintaining good motivation and morale.

2.     Make the shift from thinking of physical place to virtual space for development activities

One of the big adjustments for organisational development practitioners was how to run team development, training sessions or organisational change processes in an online environment.  We gathered and shared information on resources and apps and learnt that it was different, but it could be done. Consultant Gwen Stirling-Wilkins moved from thinking that bringing groups together to host and facilitate transformative change was unlikely to be productive, or effective, to writing a book about her experiences of successfully doing just this, leading and delivering a transformational project entirely online with 600+ people from five organizations, none of whom she ever met physically. Her book ‘From Physical Place to Virtual Space’ pulls together all her learning as a pioneer and is highly recommended.

3.     Make use of new online tools to enhance the online environment

There is an explosion of apps attempting to humanise the virtual workspace. From a psychology perspective I want to mention Deckhive, an online training app that has a fantastic and growing set of cards to support all sorts of training and development activity. The card sets include strengths, positive organisational development, motivation, creativity, coaching questions and emotions. They are useful for online coaching, performance reviews, career counselling, team development, training sessions and even organisational development. Moving, flipping and sorting cards on a virtual tabletop is as near as you can get to physically manipulating cards. I find it invaluable in making training sessions as experiential as possible.

4.     Pay attention to the rewards in the environment

There are rewards associated with social environments: smiles, verbal strokes (appreciation, thanks, compliments), shared laughter, physicality, shared non-verbal communication (winks, raised eyebrows, complicit smiles), acts of generosity (‘oh I’ll get these’ at the coffee bar). All these little incidental ‘blips’ of positive emotion have an effect on our sense of mood, wellbeing and morale. It is this continuous drip-feed of mood boosting interactions that is difficult to replicate in a virtual environment. Conscious effort needs to be made to introduce jokes, quizzes, rounds of positive news sharing and other mood boosting and rewarding activities into the online environment. And take a ten-minute break every fifty minutes minimum, if you want to maintain online energy.

5.     Review and revise

For many organizations going hybrid so extensively is going to be a new experience. Treat it as an experiment. Don’t assume you are going to get, or have got, it right first time. As the pressure on everyone to work from home all the time lessens, take time to discover what you, as an organization, have learnt so far about what works and what doesn’t. Plan how to build on that, then review how the new arrangements are working for everyone after six months: is the work pattern working for clients and stakeholders? Does the new work pattern feel fair? Is everyone getting fair exposure to opportunity? How are the work patterns impacting the organization (look for the unexpected consequences, good and bad) How are they impacting individual, team and organisational growth and development?

The shift over the last twelve months to hybrid working patterns has been emergency driven and ad hoc in execution. We have the opportunity now, as the ship steadies, of transforming them into intentional, strategic, thought-through beneficial ways of working that offer a win-win for people and the organization. This won’t happen by accident or by assuming what’s worked for the last twelve months will be good enough for the next. Instead we need to take stock, learn, re-negotiate the possible and launch pro-active plans that recognize the complexity of the opportunity, and the challenges it holds.

Other Resources

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Positive Psychology in Business’ ‘Positive Psychology at Work’, ‘Positive Psychology and Change’ and most recently ‘Co-creating Planning Teams For Dialogic OD’. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management'.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organisations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

If you want to know more about implementing approaches and processes that positively affect people’s happiness, engagement, motivation, morale, productivity and work relationships, see Sarah’s positive psychology books.

More blog posts categorised as ‘Coronavirus’

Appreciative Inquiry: working with a system in sections

Over the years I’ve had a number of requests to run an Appreciative Inquiry event for a system that is unable to come altogether at the same time in the same space. I have found ways to accommodate this, but I have never felt the process to be entirely satisfactory. Just recently I have had two more requests like this, so when I heard the UK Appreciative Inquiry Network was coming together in December, I decided this was a great challenge to take to the group.

A group of six of us had a great conversation about this challenge: How to design an AI event for a whole system that is unable to come together for a day or more in the same space at the same time?

How will it work?

We identified some of the decisions that need to be thought about when working this way:

1. How will the system be split across the events?

   • Is the same whole system that comes to each event i.e. the process of the event is split into a number of two-hour or half day-time slots across a month or two. The main challenge here is the loss of energy between each event and the need to spend time on each occasion helping the system reconnect with where it was at the end of the previous session two weeks ago.

   • Is it a vertical slice of the system that comes to each event i.e. the attendees at each event are like a hologram of the whole. This can produce disconnected duplication of conversation and outcome.

   • Is it a horizontal split i.e. managers at one event, team leaders another, and frontline staff at yet another? On the one occasion I have had to do this, it was the presence and participation of the senior leader of the whole system at each event that held it together and created sufficient cohesion between events.

   • Or is the proposal to split by function? In which case I would suggest engaging with a topic appropriate to the system in the room.

2. How, where and when will decision-making take place?

   • Will each event produce some design and destiny ideas that then need to be coordinated in some way?

   • Will each event only address discovery and dream with some further group, drawn from participants at all the groups, invited to a session for design and destiny that pulls on the material from all the earlier events?

3. Is each event topic and process the same or different?

   • Do you run essentially the same design, based on the same topic of inquiry at each event? In which case there are challenges of duplication and coordination of output.

   • Do you tailor each event in some way around a distinct process or topic? In which case the question is how to ensure no one feels they were ‘shut out’ of a conversation they would have chosen to be part of had it happened at ‘their’ event.

   • Does each event somehow ‘build’ on what has gone before with different participants?

Inherent issues with this approach

We identified some of the features created by working on a system-level issue with a whole system that can’t all come together at once, regardless of how the challenge of participants, process, topic and decision-making are resolved.

• People aren’t all part of the same experience.

• It creates challenges for the decision-making process, often introducing a time lag that can mean a loss of momentum and energy.

• There is a danger of either duplication between events, or, people not being in the conversations they would want.

• It can come to be seen as a process of representation e.g. those present at events are somehow representative of those who aren’t. In my experience, when people feel responsible for representing those ‘not present’ it can interfere at a fundamental level with the emergent properties of the process.

Some ideas of ways forward

It seemed to us that these types of split system events throw up some particular challenges that need close attention if they are not to weaken the power of the process.

1. Events need to be connected to each other, some ideas from the group of how to do this included

   • Using a graphic artist at each event to capture the essence of the experience, which can be shared at subsequent events.

   • Finding a way to bring the ‘voices’ from each event to subsequent events, for instance, a small group from event one are also participants at event two (although danger of burden of representation).

   • Participants at event one make a short video to be shown at event two and so on.

   • Using provocative propositions as a way to capture the dream from each event. These can be melded together by a subgroup made up of participants from all groups later.

2. The decision making process needs to be thought about very carefully so that interest, energy, voice, ideas and action stay closely connected.

Reflections on the discussion

I found the discussion very helpful. It confirmed for me that there was no easy answer or obvious solution to this challenge, it also helped me appreciate that I had found ways to work around these challenges in the past, i.e. it helped me tap into my resourcefulness. However, I’m not sure I can identify any actual advantages of working on a whole system dynamic in a sequential process with bits of the system separated by time and space; and my preference remains to get the whole system together in the same space at the same time for really effective co-creation.

Other Resources

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Positive Psychology in Business’ ‘Positive Psychology at Work’ and ‘Positive Psychology and Change’ both published by Wiley. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management'.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organisations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

If you want to know more about implementing approaches and processes that positively affect people’s happiness, engagement, motivation, morale, productivity and work relationships, see Sarah’s positive psychology books.

More blog posts categorised as ‘Thought Provoking’ and ‘Events/Workshops’

Is Mindfulness the new opium of the masses?

This seems to be what Ronald Purser is suggesting in his book McMindfulness. It’s an interesting read with some impressive statistics about the size of the Mindfulness industry ($4 billion anyone?), an account of its development and some nice juicy gossip about some of the insiders.

What I want to pull out is the bare bones of his critique of the industry. It is perhaps important to note that he happily acknowledges that practicing mindfulness can have benefit. Indeed he himself is a practicing Buddhist. What he objects to is the argument that teaching people one by one to be mindful, stripped out from its spiritual trappings, will somehow make the world a better place. He describes this belief as ‘Magical thinking on steroids.’ Rather he suggests that mindfulness practice acts as a band-aid to help people survive the difficult work and societal conditions many live under in our neoliberal economies. Here’s the gist of the critique.

• By decoupling the practice of mindfulness from its spiritual roots and home of Buddhism, the modern mindfulness industry has jettisoned the ethical dimension to the practice. This cultural appropriation and mutilation leaves, he suggests, nothing more than basic concentration training. There seems to be a fond belief that ‘ethical behaviour will arise ‘naturally’ from practice.’ He suggests there is no evidence as yet of this.

• The faith that, as CEO’s practice mindfulness, there will be a trickle-down effect on the world, so it will become a better, kinder, nicer place is somewhat misplaced and not supported by any evidence. He says

‘Trickle-down mindfulness, like trickle-down economics, is a cover for the maintenance of power.’

• There is a colourful, impressive-looking plethora of neuro-science brain pictures produced to support the pitch that this new improved stripped-down version of ‘pure mindfulness practice’ is strictly science-based; no dodgy dippy-hippy or God-embracing beliefs here, thank you, this is a strictly secular, science-backed methodology. The neuro-science, he argues, effectively obscures the very weak research base to support an argument of effectiveness.

• As the mindfulness industry has grown, so have the overblown claims of what it can be good for, including that it is especially effective at reducing anxiety, depression and stress. One of the 0.25% of 18,00 odd studies that actually reached decent scientific research standards concluded,  ‘that mindfulness was moderately effective at treating a variety of conditions, but no more effective than other active treatments such as drugs or exercise.’

• Mindfulness is now a big business like many others and suffers from the same challenges of staying ethical in a monetary world. He favourably compares Kabat-Zinn’s business prowess to that of McDonalds.

• The stripped downness of the technique, which is it’s USP and key selling point, renders it acontextual, which, amongst other things, means that the known counter-indicators aren’t always adhered too. Mindfulness training in contra-indicated for those who have suffered trauma or are suffering PTSD. Criteria for exclusion include depression, social anxiety, psychosis, and suicidal tendencies. Are all school groups screened? Does anyone check in work-place programme roll-outs?

• This is all occurring in a context where ‘Stress has been pathologized..., and the burden of managing it outsourced to individuals.’ Mindfulness training holds the promise of helping people deal better with stress. This in itself is part of an interesting large debate emerging about the whole ‘Me Inc.’ culture where we are all encouraged to focus on shining up every aspect of our self-care to produce a better me. So we can work harder, faster, longer without burning up. He says

‘Mindfulness-based interventions fulfil this purpose by therapeutically optimising individuals to make them ‘mentally fit’, attentive and resilient so they may keep functioning within the system.’

•  And, most damningly of all, he argues that the academic-science mindfulness complex is a servant of neoliberalism. That rather than encouraging people to challenge overwork, underpay, or  insecure,  or dangerous work; or any other form of workplace stress, it instead helps people put up with it. Mindfulness advocates, he argues, are providing support to the status quo; he criticises this stance: ‘the political naïveté involved is stunning’. But its’ adherents believe it is an apolitical practice. He doesn’t explicit say this, but I read it as, in effect, it is tolerated, indeed positively embraced, by organizations because it supports the status quo.

 What particularly interests me I suppose, is that some of these criticisms, if not all of them, can be extended to the whole positive psychology field.

 I believe we have a moral obligation to recognize that we work in a political, economic and social context. I don’t believe big organizations or corporations to be inherently bad, but I do believe that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that very good people can, like the proverbial frog, find themselves doing very bad things if the conditions are right. We must be on our guard against a complacent belief that, because we believe ourselves to be good people, we are incapable of doing harm.

Other Resources

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Positive Psychology in Business’ ‘Positive Psychology at Work’ and ‘Positive Psychology and Change’ both published by Wiley. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management'.

See more Thought Provoking and Book Review articles in the Knowledge Warehouse.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organisations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

If you want to know more about implementing approaches and processes that positively affect people’s happiness, engagement, motivation, morale, productivity and work relationships, see Sarah’s positive psychology books

What does ‘Evidence based practice’ mean for practitioners in the field?

Are you a practitioner, keen to practice in an evidence-based way but with little time to keep up with the research? Maybe you find scientific papers unreadable? Or perhaps you support the aim in principle, but find it hard to set up gold-standard science-based evaluations of your interventions with your clients? You are not alone.

Psychology, following medicine and other applied disciplines, has become very keen on the idea of evidence-based practice. And I’m all for it, in principle: it’s a hard idea to argue against. I religiously peruse the contents page of the academic journals that thud onto my doormat, rarely finding a title that gets my juices going. I thought the failing was mine, until I  read Joanna Wilde’s book ‘The Social Psychology of Organizations’.

In this book she brilliantly explains how ‘scientific knowledge’ and ‘helping practice’ relate to each other. She suggests it is somewhat optimistic to hope that laboratory methods and facts can be just plonked down in the field and have positive impact; rather, there is a translation process involved if we are to get the best from the research.  

Exploring this further Joanna mounts a spirited defence of the evidence-base that practitioners can call upon; an evidence base that is different, but no less valid, than the science evidence base.

We are not scientists, we have to problem solve not experiment

She offers a number of interesting ideas to help us be evidence-based in our practice in complex system fields.

• She notices that we are in a subtly different business to science: we aren’t seeking primarily to establish knowledge, we are primarily seeking to help. We are working in a different context to different ends to scientists.

• Given this, the intervention is judged  by impact, and not by the facts it generates. This shifts the focus of the evaluation question subtly from ‘does it work?’ to ‘does it help?’

• Our practice is client-centric, not knowledge-accumulation-centric. She suggests that practice is the process by which knowledge from one situation is converted into a different form designed to be effective for the particular situation at hand. The situation at hand  often being a WICKED problem.

• A WICKED problem is defined as ‘a complex problem that is evolving and can not be completely solved.’ WICKED problems offer a sharp contrast to  the type of bounded problem required in scientific work. What works in one context may not work in another, and what can be tightly investigated in one context may not be trackable in another. The practice is specific to the context.

• She notes that in contrast to conducting experiments, what practitioners do is

o   Engage with WICKED problems, with an awareness of problem mutation

o   Access and use a wide range of evidence from multiple sources

o   Work in relationships

o   Design interventions, monitoring emergence, enabling course correction

o   Focus on the impact in context

• She suggests that field knowledge is based on broad observation and ‘evidence by experience’. Our evidence base exists, but it extends beyond experimental results.

• Some examples of ‘immediate and evolving  (sources of ) evidence’ that are field specific include:

  • Emerging events in talk and context

  • Practitioner experience and authentic intuition

  • Stakeholder comments

In other words, we are cognisant of data emerging in the moment and attempt to form hypothesis of ‘what is going on here?’ against which we can select our possible next action.

We are not detached observers

This is a key difference: how we engage with and work with our clients is key to our practice. Scientists, on the other hand, generally work to keep themselves out of the science. We, or at least I, am well aware that I am monitoring the effectiveness of my practice almost on a moment to moment basis. In my head I have a set of criteria against which I am evaluating the conversation: is it moving productively forward? Is it enhancing or at least not damaging relationships? Are they ‘hearing’ what I’m saying? am I ‘getting’ what they are saying? And of course fundamentally ‘does this seem to be making a positive difference? Is it helping the situation?’

Sadly the answer to these questions isn’t always yes. But that’s ok because I can try something else. After all as Wilde so succinctly note, ‘Intervention practice requires the capacity to work in real time with uncertainty.’ And ‘For those of us that have built a career as practitioners, it is the dynamic nature of translating emerging knowledge into changing complex environments that makes the work engaging and rewarding.’ And all the while I’m building up my practice evidence base.

This isn’t to say that laboratory work isn’t valuable. It is and we need to be able to work with trust in the scientific disciples we draw from. But few of us have the time, patience or skill to critique the papers. To be honest, we rely on the academic refereed paper system to ensure that for us. We want to be able to take it and run with it. This sounds interesting, how can I apply it here? How might it help?

I love Joanna’s work and regard this book very highly. What I have presented here is a much simplified and reduced part of a much richer and more complex argument about the relationship between science and practice. If you are interested, I encourage you to invest in the book. It’s great.

Other Resources

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Positive Psychology in Business’ ‘Positive Psychology at Work’ and ‘Positive Psychology and Change’ both published by Wiley. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management'.

See more Thought Provoking and Book Review articles in the Knowledge Warehouse.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organisations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

If you want to know more about implementing approaches and processes that positively affect people’s happiness, engagement, motivation, morale, productivity and work relationships, see Sarah’s positive psychology books

Love the money, hate the job? The effect of bulls**t jobs on happiness

Money for old rope - so why am I exhausted?

Many of us have noticed  a strange paradox but been unable to put a name to it. We believe that a job that doesn’t demand too much of us should mean we have plenty of energy left over for our real interests. Furthermore, we anticipate that if that job not only doesn’t demand much of us but also pays us very well, then we should experience happiness: we have beaten the system! We are being paid for doing practically nothing, what could be a better arrangement?

And yet, after an initial sense of triumph, it can slowly become apparent that the logic - lots of money for little work equals happiness and a fulfilled life  - doesn’t work out. Instead we feel, well, that something isn’t right. That despite the income we aren’t happy at work.

This leaves us caught in a trap: we feel we would be fools to leave such a great sinecure. And so we struggle on, wondering what is wrong with us that we can’t make the most of this; that after work we don’t spring into life as the artist, writer, dressmaker we know ourselves to be at heart; rather that we slump in front of the TV apparently exhausted after doing next to nothing all day. We grind through the endless days of non-work trying to look busy. We wonder why what should be great, and is the envy of friends slowing burning out in the caring professions, feels so awful, indeed, soul destroying. It seems there is a cost to taking the money without feeling we are really delivering value in return.

The Graeber hypothesis

David Graeber has put a name to this particular employment conundrum. He calls the jobs with these characteristics that produce these unexpected outcomes, ‘bull**t jobs’. A bullshit job is one that essentially has no meaning either to the job holder, nor, seemingly, to the wider world. It adds no perceptible value to life. As he says:

“Be honest: if your job didn't exist, would anybody miss it? Have you ever wondered why not? Up to 40% of us secretly believe our jobs probably aren't necessary. In other words: they are bulls**t jobs.”

This interesting book is highly recommended. It’s an easy with read with lots of quotes from those in bulls**t jobs. He goes on to offer an interesting analysis of the rise and proliferation of these jobs since the 1980s and the growing of the bulls**tisation of other, previously unaffected and otherwise meaningful jobs, such as teaching.

Thinking of ourselves as  rational economic actors the trap we find ourselves in makes no sense, and so we can’t resolve it.

Your job should seem necessary, if only to you

However, it makes perfect sense from a positive psychology perspective. From work in this field we know that meaningfulness is important to engagement and wellbeing at work. We also know that the boundaries between work and outside work are highly permeable and how we are in one sphere of life will affect how we are in other spheres of life. In other words the draining effect of a bulls**t job will adversely affect our ability to be energised at other times.

Pondering this, I related David’s theory to a model about the value of work from Christopher Michaelson, who suggests that the value can be arranged across two dimensions. He argues that work can offer a high intrinsic value i.e. feel  valuable in itself; it can have an instrumental value, such as being well paid. From these two values we can construct a landscape on which to place different jobs.

As you can see below I have had a go at locating where bulls**t jobs fit on this model e.g. high in instrumental value (well paid), low in intrinsic value (pointless).  It appears they are located directly opposite to many caring jobs e.g. looking after the sick or vulnerable.

I am hopeful this understanding might help people caught in the trap of highly paid yet soul-destroying jobs. It helps make sense of the situation and facilitates a discussion about the kind of job that might be, not just bearable but actually engaging, and whether the cost of switching might be worth it 

What do you think?

References

Graeber, D. (2018) Bullshit jobs: a theory. Allen Lane UK

Michaelson, C. (2013) The value(s) of work. In Froh, J. J., & Parks, A. C. (2013). Activities for teaching positive psychology: A guide for instructors. American Psychological Association.

Evaluation from an Appreciative perspective

People who are interested in the Appreciative Inquiry approach sometimes struggle to understand how they can apply it to the challenge of assessment or evaluation.

How does evaluation work?

To engage with this question, we need first to consider the nature of evaluation. There are two key ways of understanding evaluation. The first sees it as a measurement of change in something real. This suggests that any change to be measured exists independently of the measurer and is an impersonal fact of the world; that ‘knowledge’ exists independently of the knower. 

We might note that were this actually the case then medical research would not so value the double-blind protocol where neither the subject nor the experimenter knows who got the active drug and who the placebo. This design is the gold standard in medical research because of a recognition that a researcher’s knowledge can influence their measurement, albeit unconsciously. So while it is often useful to act ‘as if’ change can be understood in this ‘separate from the actors’ way, it is a convenient fiction not an undeniable truth.

Alternatively, we can recognise change as socially constructed. We can recognise that the change we see is dependent on who is looking and how they are looking. We can recognise that the relationship between the context and the actor is systemic: each affects the other. What we choose to search for affects what we find; what we find affects how we behave in the future. In this understanding awareness of change becomes something that we create through our ways of looking; and we make choices about our ways of looking.

We can further understand assessment and evaluation across two dimensions, creating 4 quadrants. 

We have choices about whether we are mainly focussed on the past or the future; and on assessment or development. We could also consider whether we are mainly interested in learning or control.

Different models of evaluation for different situations - the test isn’t everything!

This useful model allows us to consider different evaluation approaches for different situations. For example, if we are assessing against clear standards, such as assessing someone taking a driving test, then our focus will be on the bottom left quadrant: past/ assessment.

Since much of our assessment, evaluation experience is located in this quadrant, for example exams, tests, and, sad to say, even performance appraisals, many people are unaware that it is only one of at least four ways of thinking about assessment.

On the other hand I am currently involved in helping a group create a ‘strengths-based’ peer review process. This is a conscious decision to create a different evaluation experience.

The model above allows us to see that if the main point of our review is to improve the service in the future then the focus of our process lies in identifying development for the future; and is at the learning end of the control/learning spectrum.

For further information on how to create a systemic appreciative review you are referred to

Appreciative Peer Review: A procedure in the November 2017 Blog of the International Journal of Appreciative Inquiry, translated from the original Dutch article by Wick van der Vaart. https://aipractitioner.com/2017/11/09/appreciative-peer-review-procedure/

Embedded Evaluation by Mette Jacobsgaard and Irene Norlund in the August 2011 edition of aipractitioner. https://aipractitioner.com/product/embedded-evaluation/

This article is also indebted to Systemic Appreciative Evaluation by Malene Slov Dinesen in the Aug 2009 edition of aipratitioner https://aipractitioner.com/product/ai-practitioner-august-2009/

Did you know: seeking happiness can make people unhappy?

While we recognise that in general happiness is a crucial ingredient of well-being and health, happiness is not valued to the same extent by everyone. For some people it is a ‘nice to have’ while for others it is the stuff of life, a state to which they constantly aspire. Goal pursuit theory suggests that if we value something and actively pursue it we should experience more of it. So if we value happiness and pursue it, so we should experience more of it.

However, there is a sting in the tail. The more highly we value something, the higher the standards are likely to be against which we evaluate our achievement of it. So, for instance, if I value academic excellence and strive hard to achieve it, I’m not going to be very satisfied with just a ‘pass’ grade – it hasn’t met my standards of a great mark.

Importantly, while my disappointment with my mark doesn’t change my mark, if my goal is to achieve happiness, my disappointment with the level of happiness I am experiencing DOES affect my level of happiness. To be disappointed is incompatible in the moment with feeling happy. Of course, expectations are context specific: most people don’t expect to feel happy at a funeral, but might well expect to feel happy at a party. 

If I’m at a party and DON’T, as I expected I would, feel happy, then I am likely to feel disappointed. And the feeling disappointed will lower my happiness. If I had not had any expectations of feeling happy then I wouldn’t feel disappointed by not feeling happy and, paradoxically, might actually feel happier than the disappointed person!

In other words, by valuing happiness very highly, and making it a goal and measure of value, we product the very circumstances that raise the likelihood of disappointment and adversely affect our chances of achieving happiness: The pursuit of happiness may cause decreased happiness.

Considering all this, Mauss, Tamir, Anderson and Savino (2011) concluded ‘that valuing happiness is not necessarily linked to greater happiness. In fact, under certain conditions the opposite is true. Under conditions of low (but not high) life stress, the more people valued happiness, the lower were their hedonic balance [ratio of positive to negative emotional states], psychological well-being, and life satisfaction, and the higher their depressive symptoms.’

In short, an overly focused pursuit of happiness is unlikely to lead to greater happiness. We need to recognize that we experience all sorts of emotions and while happiness can be encouraged by the way we live our lives it can’t be produced to order: it is not a guaranteed outcome of any activity. 

I wonder if the reported huge increase of reported depression in the world is in any way related to this strange paradox. Have we somehow, with our twenty-first century interest in and emphasis on happiness, raised expectations about how much happiness people should feel, maybe even to the extent that all non-happy feelings are experienced as strong failure and disappointment? My mother used to say to me ‘I don’t mind what you do (as a career she meant) as long as you are happy.’ For her happiness was the goal and measure of success. Even then I struggled to understand the advice as I didn’t understand how to ‘be happy’ I didn’t know what made me happy. Finding that out has been a life-long journey.

My father, conversely, pointed out to me long before it became a poster slogan, ‘happiness is a journey not a destination’, or to paraphrase John Lennon ‘Happiness happens while you are concentrating on something else,’ or finally my own thoughts: happiness is a happy by-product of the life lived and the choices made. 

This article is based on the research and article byMauss, Tamir, Anderson and Savino (2011) Can seeking happiness make people unhappy? Paradoxical effects of valuing happiness. Emotion, Vol 11, No. 4, 807-815

Why it's important for all of us to learn to forgive those who trespass against us

Forgiveness has an image problem. Asked to forgive people say: ‘but I can’t forget what they did’ or ‘I can’t imagine ever being friends again’ or ‘but I want them punished.’ These responses show a confusion between forgiveness, reconciliation, forgetting and justice.

Forgive them for you

To forgive doesn’t mean forgetting, it doesn’t mean reconciling and it doesn’t mean letting people off e.g. ignoring, minimising, tolerating or excusing. Nor does it mean minimising an injustice, putting up with ill-treatment or allowing an offender to harm again. It is not about meekly turning the other cheek. It is a personal process that may or not be expressed directly to the offender. While knowing you have been forgiven is clearly likely to have an impact on the offender, I want to focus here on the benefits to us of learning to be more forgiving of others, whether we tell our offender about it or not.

Forgiveness is a gracious and courageous response that enables the forgiver to lessen the power of the transgression to define him or her. Forgiveness remembers the past in a way that opens up positive futures.

It tends to be a process that unfolds over time, slowly replacing the desire for revenge or avoidance and unforgiving emotions such as bitterness and fear.

Techniques that help foster forgiveness include

One thing that helps induce feelings of forgiveness is focussing on the offender’s humanity, and seeing the action as distinct, not defining. Thus we might say: ‘They lied’ rather than ‘they are a liar.’ Developing feeling of compassion or mercy also helps, reflected in sentiments such as  ‘I can’t condone what they did but I can see how they were driven to it’, or perhaps, ‘I can see there was some muddled good intentions in there, but that doesn’t excuse what they did to me. ’ These are pro-social responses of empathy and compassion and a desire for genuine and ultimate good that act to edge out the hurt and bitter responses. Forgiveness responds to harm with grounded hope. Hope is a key positive emotion for moving forward in life.

What helps us to forgive?

Forgiveness begins (and this is unexpected to many) by accurately naming and blaming the offender for the harm done. A strong religious identity and commitment helps (but not just ‘being spiritual’), as does feeling empathy or compassion for the offender. Having a more agreeable personality and having a closer and more committed relationship before the offense (with the exception as outlined below) also aid forgiveness.

What makes it harder to forgive?

Having a hostile personality or narcissistic tendencies make it harder to forgive. Also depression adversely affects the ability to forgive in previously close relationships.

Why should we forgive?

Correlational research suggests that people with more forgiving personalities have less anxiety and lower blood pressure while those with unforgiving personalities have worse self-esteem, greater depression and anxiety, and often exhibit post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms such as nightmares. Those who have trouble forgiving themselves suffer the worst!

While experimental research demonstrates that as people learn to forgive, they show increased self-esteem, hope, positive attitudes towards their offender and a desire for reconciliation. They also generally experience reductions in grief, depression, anxiety and anger and increases in positive affective responses, that is, they are better able to experience positive emotions.

Interestingly those who focus first on forgiveness to restore their own happiness (rather than focussing on the offender) make faster progress. However, in the long run, those who seek to forgive out of altruistic compassion and concern for the offender ultimately experience greater self-benefits.

Other lines of research have shown that unforgiving reactions, such as the mental rehearsal of the painful event, arouse strong negative emotions such as fear, anger, sadness, muscle tension around the eyebrows and eyes, higher levels of blood pressure, heart rate and sweating. While empathetic and forgiving reactions have significant positive and calming effects.

So what to do?

Attempting to understand the transgressive behaviour without minimizing or excusing it, focussing on compassion for the humanity of the offender (to err is human, and we are none of us perfect) and forgiveness e.g. replacing the hurt and bitter feelings with a genuine attempt to wish the offender well; these empathetic and forgiving responses prompt greater positive and relaxing emotion, joy, and a sense of having more control in the situation, with a calmer physiological profile.

Sources

Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet pp 403 -408 in the Lopez J. L. (ed)  The Encylopedia of Positive Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell

Other Resources

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Positive Psychology at Work’ and ‘Positive Psychology for Change’ both published by Wiley. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management'.

See more, How To, Positive Psychology and Thought Provoking Articles articles in the Knowledge Warehouse.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organisations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

Where Next With Positive Psychology

Earlier this month I attended the Global Strengthscope Practitioner Conference in London. A wonderful and inspiring conference where completely unexpectedly I was presented with the 2017 conference ‘Outstanding Contribution to Positive Work Practices Award.’ I was delighted and honoured and it got me thinking about what we have achieved so far in bringing positive work practices into the workplace and what we have yet to achieve.

There are some specific practices that stem from positive psychology that have and are definitely making their way into the workplace. Strengths awareness is one. Thanks to the work of Strengths Partnership and others the language of strengths, and, the ability to identify and measure strengths is an established work practice in many organizations. The need to help people work to their strengths is making headway in organizations. Only the other day I received an inquiry from someone in a large manufacturing automobile organization for a strengths framework to replace their competency framework. They wanted a ready to go, large scale complete strengths based process to support development from recruitment onwards. I was able to introduce them to BeTalent who have developed a fantastic, online strengths and related behaviour assessment and development process, suitable for use at scale, that is exactly what the inquirer was looking for. This ‘work practice’ is on the edge of mainstream practice.

The importance of mood or positivity to work culture and performance is making headway although still regarded by many as something to concentrate on after doing the difficult thing not as a way of doing the difficult thing. Positivity is central to Appreciative Inquiry, a methodology for change that can usefully be regarded as an operationalization of positive psychology for the workplace, which itself is definitely more widely known and practiced in the UK than it was when I started practicing in this way in the late 1990s. It is taught as an approach in our management colleges and these days people are more likely to approach me specifically asking for an Appreciative Inquiry intervention.

Wellbeing has long been a workplace concern, and the emphasis of positive psychology on flourishing and positive health has had an impact on workplace practices in this area. Nic Marks, previously of the National Economics Foundation and presently CEO of Happiness Works has been a pioneer in developing organisational ‘happiness’ or wellbeing measurement tools built from positive psychology principles. The development of organization-wide measurement processes allows positive work practices to be implemented at scale.

For myself, as a sole practitioner, my contribution has been more on a ‘bits and pieces’ basis. I bring the positive psychology perspective to bear on every assignment one way or another, and increasingly find myself an educator both in business and academia on positive psychology and its implementation in the workplace. I am able to run Appreciative Inquiry informed events, or run sessions on strengths, or help develop positive and appreciative leadership skills. And of course I have tried to spread the work through my writing. And I am not alone, there is a growing band of UK based positive psychology practitioners, thanks not least to the Positive Psychology Masters established at the University of East London by Dr Ilona Boniwell.

For the future my ambition and vision is for this to become a movement.

To this end I am already talking to people about establishing something akin to an Institute for Flourishing Organizations. I see such an organisation acting as a central hub for those attempting to create flourishing organizations in the UK, those seeking to work in such organizations and those with skills to help. In my mind it will be a home for those interested in this growing movement so they can find other like-minded people. I want it to act to bring the positive psychology and the Appreciative Inquiry field together around their shared ambition of creating flourishing at work.

My vision at present for such an organisation is that it would promote positive psychology practice in organizations; offer measurement and assessment processes, possibly a badge of accreditation; act as guidance for job seekers looking for organizations that ‘got this’; offer a resource for academics seeking research possibilities; bring together positive psychology and Appreciative Inquiry. This organisation would be where my friend who asked if I knew of organizations that worked in a strengths-based way so he could apply to them, and my colleague seeking a strengths-based alternative to competencies, could come to find answers.

I firmly believe we have enough knowledge and well developed practice now that we can offer a full organisational service that has something to offer or say to every aspect of organisational life from recruitment to strategy to downsizing. We know we can help organizations adopt more flourishing work practices on a piece by piece transactional basis, and I believe we know enough now to be able to develop a truly transformational way of organisational life fit for the challenges of twenty-first century life.

I can’t think of a more fitting way to build on the honour of the award and to create a lasting legacy of my nearly thirty years of contributing to positive workplace practices.

I’d love to hear any initial thoughts in response to this piece, and if you want to be involved in the conversation as it develops please let me know.

Energy state transformation is the key to Appreciative Inquiry effectiveness

I have recently come across a great paper about human energy, it is referenced at the end of this piece. It set me thinking about what it was saying in relation to Appreciative Inquiry. These are my thoughts.

What is 'energy' in an organisaitonal setting?

Energy can be a transforming resource. When people become ‘energised’ they are transformed before our eyes. We talk about how people become ‘fired up’ or are ‘on fire’. We see increased animation, people seem more dynamic; quiet wallflowers are suddenly able to hold a room’s attention because they are talking about something that really matters to them. The generation of this energy transforms potential futures as while un-energised people are disinclined to ‘spend’ any energy or to exert any energy to get something done, energised people are a force for movement.

We know from earlier theorists that we can conceptualise energy as non-activated, that is, latent, or, as activated, that is, ‘in motion’. We understand human energy to be made up of different elements e.g. to have affective, cognitive and behavioural dimensions.  Human energy can be characterised as being positive or negative in intent or direction.

Organisational energy, while clearly related to individual energy, can also be thought of separately as a resource of a collective unit. Four different collective or organisational energy states have been identified: productive energy, comfortable energy, resigned inertia, and corrosive energy. These names have great face validity with me: armed with this language I can see I am in the business, frequently, of transforming resigned inertia or corrosive organisational energy into productive organisational energy that is going to work to move things forward.

These four states can be seen as lying across two dimensions: intensity and quality. Intensity as a dimension ranges from high (activated energy) to low (non-activated energy). While quality ranges from positive to negative reflecting how the energy is constructive or destructive of the organizations goals.

Productive (high positive) organisational energy can be characterized as a collective temporary emergent state. Temporary of course means not permanent, collective means involving everyone. The idea of an ‘emergent’ phenomena comes from the theory of complex adaptive systems and suggests that the phenomena of productive (high positive) organisational energy ‘emerges’ from the behaviour of individual actors in the system. The behaviour of these individual actors that help to create collective high positive organisational energy include individual interactions in settings of mutual dependence; the creation of shared interpretations of shared events; and by the generation of shared emotional or cognitive states.

A language for Appreciuative Inquiry interventions

It was at this point of my reading that I sat up and took notice. This is exactly the area in which Appreciative Inquiry and other dialogic, co-creative change methodologies create their magic. It is precisely by actively working with the interactions in situations of mutual dependency (a whole system), by creating shared interpretations of shared experiences (the process we take people through to create ‘account’ of past, present and future) and by the deliberate generation and expansion of positive emotions (Appreciative Inquiry particularly) that we are able to have an effect on the energy of a group or an organization and so the potential for action and change. I find this articulation of the phenomena of organisational energy and how it relates to the processes of Appreciative Inquiry very exciting.

In this paper energy is described as a resource that allows actors to generate new cognitive frameworks to organise their understanding of a situation. In other words, as we have different experiences together, so we see things differently together, and therefore we can act differently, together. As the paper explains, once a group starts to experience a shared enthusiasm, shared cognitive activation (brain or thought activity) and shared sense of working for joint goals, so the situation begins to feel more one of mutuality and less one of antagonisms. As the sense of mutuality (we’re all in this together) grows, so people are more likely to get involved helping to create meaning, direction setting, deciding, motivating others and in general taking on such leadership tasks in some area or other. The leadership capacity of the system expands. Leadership capacity and leadership enactment becomes less a property of a job title and more a property of the social system.  It is this shift in the leadership capacity and pattern in the group, as well as the emergent productive energy that allows change to happen. Again this describes exactly what, as a practitioner, I see as the Appreciative Inquiry process unfolds.

And so I suggest that as we look to help organizations adapt and grow in changing conditions we need to attend to the phenomena of organisational energy. Thanks to researchers and theorists we have a language in which to describe what we see in organisations and to help us understand what underlies the effectiveness of these ‘positive energy, whole system, dialogic’ change methodologies such as Appreciative Inquiry. By giving us words and a framework they help people articulate something they instinctively know i.e. difference between the energy of resigned inertia and productive energy. They make it possible to explain what Appreciative Inquiry does and how: namely that it transforms the energy of resigned inertia or corrosive energy into productive energy by working with the collective phenomena from which the temporary phenomena of productive energy emerges. By so doing it creates a shift in energy state and an increase in leadership capacity allowing for effective organisational action.

I am highly, if not wholly, indebted in this article to the paper ‘Experiencing Human Energy as a Catalyst for Developing Leadership Capacity’ by Bernard Vogel published in Developing Leaders for Positive Organising: a 21st Century Repertoire for Leading in Extraordinary Times, of the which I have here only scratched the surface.

Sarah Lewis

Guest Blog - Talent and determination get you there, but how do you get them? by Saira Iqbal of Zircon Management Consulting

Zircon Management Consulting is an award winning Business Psychology Company specialising in Talent Management

We know it's important, where does it come form?

One of the most successful men I know grew up in the roughest streets of Bristol, and shared a cramped bedroom with his five brothers until he could  leave the family home and ‘escape’ to his second choice university.  Now a multi-millionaire cabinet minister, each of his milestones made it more and more apparent that his success was no simple stroke of luck.

There were no useful networks that his working class parents were a part of, there was no private school education to teach social poise; but there was drive that came from great ambition and pure determination.

There is a lot of research to suggest that importance of ambition and determination to success (McCann, 2015; Meier, 2011; Rath & Conchie 2008), yet little evidence on how we can develop these attributes.

If ambition, and determination are core principles of success, then why do some people have it in droves, whilst others pay no attention to life’s opportunities?

Why do some have an immense hunger to pursue their aspirations, whilst others are satisfied with living in the moment and focusing on the day as it comes?

Our recent white paper, Winning Attitudes, addresses this very issue. Our interviewees often described adversity, loss, pain and rejection as being the core, pivotal moments that changed the way they viewed themselves and the world around them, helping create the drive they needed to succeed.

 “The loss created the drive.” Clive Jacobs, Entrepreneur, Holiday Autos, Travel Weekly (UK) and The Caterer

“The terrain to success is not a motorway, it is a swamp with ups and downs.” Jeremy Snape, Founder, Sporting Edge

“My father used to put me down, that drove me to prove myself. It gave me determination and focus.” Clive Jacobs, Entrepreneur, Holiday Autos, Travel Weekly (UK) and The Caterer

“You need to have survival mentality.” Adam Freeman-Pask, Olympian, Rowing

Is adversity a necessary prerequisite? 

Similar to the experiences our interviewees shared, the aforementioned cabinet minister, after facing adversity and financial issues in his childhood, often stated that ‘he had to find a way out’. He knew ‘there was more out there for him’. His drive came from a psychological desire to move away from his childhood experience.

Taking this even further, one may ask, ‘does there need to be some type of adversity in order for success to happen?’

McCann (2015) suggests that using adversity as a means for success is a ‘Move From’ mind-set, where the biggest driver is a fear of failure. Success factors such as Burning Ambition, Dogged Determination, Unwavering Belief and Maximising Opportunities, are often triggered from a moment in adversity – such as a disadvantaged childhood.

Whilst specific events can result in a fear of failure, it is the winning mind-set that keeps us going: The Winners among us never give up. They persist, and are determined and unwavering in the pursuit of their goals and their dreams. It is their response to these adverse circumstances that ultimately results in a positive outcome.

“You need to keep going in one direction and strive. If there is a bump in the road, go around it.” Nicola Murphy, CEO, The River Group

“I was determined not to be dependent or reliant on anyone.” Clive Jacobs, Entrepreneur, Holiday Autos, Travel Weekly (UK) and The Caterer

I can’t change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. –Jimmy Dean on “Good Morning America,” ABC.

Some surrender.

Others gain a thirst to win.

You may need to battle your circumstances, but it is your attitude that determines whether you will allow your situation to make you kneel over and give up, or rise up through every blow, so you can win the war.

To read more about what makes up a Winning Attitude from the point of view of 42 business savvy corporate CEOs and edgy entrepreneurs, committed Olympic and sporting stars through to charismatic media personalities, please take a look at our White Paper.

Written by Saira Iqbal of Zircon

Key factors that create living human system learning and change

Introduction

In the last twenty years a new understanding of organizations has been developed, understanding them as living human systems of enterprise and creativity. It offers as an alternative to the dominant view of organizations as large and complicated machines of production. Methodologies based on this understanding, for instance Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space, World Café and SimuReal, allow the whole of the organizational domain to be approached from the living human system perspective. They allow us to address all organizational challenges from recruitment to redundancy within the same living human system frame. Four key factors underpin this approach.

1. The importance of learning for behaviour change

Learning means that something shifts in our understanding of the world; and understanding the world differently allows us to engage with it differently. These methodologies all effectively enable the system, i.e. the people who make up the organization, to learn about itself. They facilitate increased understanding of how the organizational system behaves, what it believes, what it thinks, and its assumptions about both itself and the outside world. They facilitate greater understanding of how things connect, and of how the organization collectively understands forthcoming change. They facilitate identification and connection of the many different beliefs within the organization about what the changes mean. These shifts in the mental maps of the world held by those that make up the organizational system contribute to the organizational system’s mental model of its environment, which in turn influence ideas about how to engage with it effectively.

2. The importance of participation for system behaviour change

Participative Management was a core component of organizational development in the 1960s. These methodologies build on this awareness of the importance of active participation. The key difference with this new thinking is that such participation is extended beyond the management cadre to the whole organizational membership.

3. The importance of dialogue to behaviour change

Dialogic approaches to organizational change emerged in the 1990s, most notable Appreciative Inquiry, as coherent, yet different, approaches to organizational development. The key distinguishing feature of these approaches is the recognition that reality is social constructed. From this perspective reality can be understood as a socially negotiated phenomena, meaning that organizations are meaning-making systems.

The emergence of these dialogic approaches was accompanied by the development of complexity theories of organization. These suggested that psychologists could come to understand the complexity of organisations in the same way that natural scientists grasp complex natural systems. From this perspective organizations are seen as dynamic non-linear systems, the outcome of whose actions is unpredictable, but, like turbulence in gases and liquids, is governed by a set of simple order-generating rules. That is to say, they are complex but not chaotic.

4. The emergence of co-creative methodologies

These dialogic approaches are also known as co-creative approaches to change. They are a separate and distinctive collection of approaches, not to be confused with some other communication methodologies such as town hall meetings, or even Work-Out sessions. While these processes might look similar, in that they gather a large number of people together in a room, they are fundamentally different in process and reflect different sets of underlying beliefs about organizations and change. These co-creative or transformational collaborative approaches have some distinctive features, as discussed in a previous post.

Approaching organizations from these understandings, models and perspectives allows us to access organisational structure, and to create organisational change, through accessible phenomena such as conversation, rather than trying to grapple with intangible phenomena such as culture, yet to the same end of achieving change in ways of being and behaving.

Other Resources

More on this, and details of how to practice Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space, World Café and SimuReal can all be found in Sarah’s latest book Positive Psychology and Change

For more on creating positive organisational change visit our knowledge warehouse

For case studies on positive psychology at work visit our case studies collection

Or , click through to learn about or to order our positive psychology based positive organisational development card pack and other support resources

See more, Appreciative Inquiry, Change and Though Provoking articles in the Knowledge Warehouse.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organizations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.

Making your own mission

Anyone who has ever tried to assemble flat pack furniture will know that vague or unclear instructions can be of as little use as no instructions. Yet how many times do we receive requests from higher management to ‘Increase employee engagement’, ‘heighten brand awareness’, ‘Improve office culture’ or ‘Streamline work processes’. Indeed we may be guilty of issuing such directives. Orders such as these that do not have specific measurable outcomes, or direction as to how management wants them to be fulfilled, they are mere vague desires disguised in management jargon.

Negative Outcomes

Unfortunately, it is not often appropriate or good for one’s career to highlight these concerns to those who issued these vague objectives. but leaving them unaddressed leads to negative outcomes such as:

·      Lack of focus and motivation in individuals

·      Deterioration in office culture

·      Low morale

·      Uncoordinated or unproductive actions

·      Teams working for mutually exclusive goals

·      Loss of confidence in leadership

·      Loss of ambitious staff

These effects of unclear goal setting in an office environment can result in lost revenue and employee dissatisfaction.

Case Study

To help us understand the potential consequences of poor mission setting, and to see what a leader who finds himself in this situation can do, let’s examine the actions of Colonel Richard Westley, O.B.E., M.C., who  found himself in exactly this situation in 1995 during the genocidal war in Bosnia.

Just like the now infamous town of Srebrenica, Gorazde is small Muslim Bosniak town in the mainly Christian Serb south of Bosnia. In 1995 British Army sent a small group of troops under United Nations authority to Gorazde. Their orders were twofold:

·      Serve as the eyes and ears of future N.A.T.O./U.N. action

·      To protect the civilian populations of the designated safe areas against armed attacks and other hostile acts, through the presence of its troops and, if necessary, through the application of air power, in accordance with agreed procedure

There were no planned future actions by N.A.T.O. or the U.N. at that point and so no direction as to what information to prioritise gathering. And through the vague terminology ‘serve as the eyes and ears’, no direction as to what kind of intelligence gathering to focus on. It also did not specify what ‘other hostile acts’ included, what the ‘agreed procedure’ was or most importantly give any indication as to how the mere ‘presence’ of several hundred lightly armed peacekeepers will deter several thousand heavily armed and highly motivated Serbs. Especially considering that the ‘application of air power’ turned out to be non-existent.

Defining the Mission

However, he and his immediate superior knew the risks of not having a clear mission and decided on a simple solution; to make their own. This lead Colonel Westley and his immediate superior to devise their own, more specific objectives:

·      To prevent any Serbian encroachments into any part of the U.N. outlined Safe zone of Gorazde, with force if necessary

·      To prevent any Bosniak forays out of the U.N. safe zone of Gorazde

·      To establish a strong psychological presence to both sides by operating on both sides on the exclusion line (i.e. patrolling outside the safe zone and establishing freedom of action, showing they won’t be bullied)

·      To prevent civilian casualties as much as possible

·      To neutrally liaise between the two sides when possible

·      To update U.N. command to any developments in and around the safe zone such as troop build ups, violations of the safe zone or humanitarian emergencies

What this meant in practice was the decision to change from peace keepers to peace enforcers. By redefining their mission in this clearer and more aggressive way, adopting a  stance to actively hold the ring between the two forces come what may, and to protect civilians at any cost, it removed any doubt in the ranks as to why they were being deployed far from home somewhere they had never heard of.  It also allowed the British to establish a stronger defensive position and gave them a stronger negotiating position.

This contrasts with other UN peacekeepers in the area who:

·      Were constrained by U.N. agreed procedure in the threat of force and use of force to counter Serbian violations

·      Suffered a progressive loss of morale caused by an inability to influence events

·      Gave full initiative to the Serbian forces in the region and emboldened them

·      Undermined U.N. military credibility in the region

·      Became overly dependant on negotiation

Opposing Outcomes

Around two months after the British deployment the Serbs attempted to capture Gorazde and then Srebrenica. At Gorazde, they encountered immediate and effective resistance on the ridges around the town at the extreme edge of the exclusion zone from prepared and motivated British troops.  This gave the Bosniak soldiers of Gorazde time to move up to these ridges out of their own exclusion zone, relieve the British peacekeepers and protect the town themselves. It is important to note that Colonel Westley was aware that firstly the small U.N. force would never stop the Serbs on their own and secondly that whoever controlled the ridges around Gorazde, but between the two exclusion zones of both Serbs and Bosniaks, controlled Gorazde.  So, he called on Bosniak forces as soon as fighting began to prevent a massacre, against U.N. procedure.

However, in the proceeding months at Srebrenica, another European force had allowed the Serbs to take 30 of their soldiers hostage to use as human shields against air power, allowed them to seize several observation points around the town without resistance, and, allowed high ranking Serbian officers into the town which spread discord and did not fully enforce the exclusion zone around the town. This meant that when the Serbs chose to seize the town and murder all the males, the peacekeeping force were in no position to resist and had lost the will to do so. As unfortunate or tragic as these actions look in retrospect at each stage the UN soldiers were attempting to follow their vague orders while not overstepping them, and were being constrained by U.N. procedure. Remember they were only to protect the safe area’s ‘through the PRESENCE of its troops’, not explicitly through their actions. 

Redefining over Interpreting the Mission

Colonel Westley pursued a smaller but more defined mission while giving himself more freedom of action and was thus able to focus on and prepare for the worst eventualities. Whereas as the other force dissipated their effort on several contradictory aims meaning they achieved none of them and lost focus on the main goal of preventing ethnic cleansing. Proving that interpreting an instruction is not the same as redefining it. Interpreting a mission in your own way is a refinement of a flawed instruction and will inherit many of those original flaws, redefining a mission is a paradigm shift resulting in a completely new mental framework in which to address the problem.  

This is an extreme example but a common outcome of unclear goal setting and a heroic but simple example of how to avoid that fate. Individuals, teams, departments and companies all work better towards a clear, defined and measurable goal. So, when you receive that next aspirational contradictory pie in the sky instruction from upper management, or indeed if you are in danger of issuing it, don’t ignore it but redefine it.

Redefine in a way that’s

·      Concise,

·      Easy to understand,

·      Measurable and

·      Achievable,

So, doing a few things right is a lot better than doing many things wrong.     

Other Resources

The book itself - Positive Psychology And Change, published by Wiley.

Sarah Lewis is the owner and principal psychologist of Appreciating Change. She is author of ‘Positive Psychology at Work’ and ‘Positive Psychology for Change’ both published by Wiley. She is also the lead author of 'Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management'.

See more, Leadership, Leadership Skills and Though Provoking articles in the Knowledge Warehouse.

APPRECIATING CHANGE CAN HELP

Appreciating Change is skilled and experienced at supporting leaders in working in this challenging, exciting and productive way with their organizations. Find out more by looking at how we help with Leadership, Culture change and with employee Engagement.

For further information on these alternative approaches to change, please contact us or phone 07973 782 715. A selection of strength card packs are available from our online store.