July 2008
In this Issue:
Transitions
The Inner Experience of Change
By Tom Stevens
I find people are surprised when I say there is a big distinction between change and transition – and that it is often transition that makes people more uncomfortable than change. What’s the difference? Change is an observable event. Transition is an inner state. If you go from driving a Miata to driving a Hummer, you’ve made a change. Transition is the period it takes you to get used to it.
Any significant change can trigger a transition - the birth of a child, marriage, divorce, job loss or promotion, relocation, corporate reorganization. Transitions may be caused by changes we initiated or due to events imposed upon us. We may see the change as positive and desirable, or as something to be avoided, bad luck, a tragedy. Sometimes transitions are sparked by a less visible personal circumstance, feelings about reaching a certain age, a spiritual experience, or simply a new insight about oneself.
Because much of what we do – 95% according to some researchers – is done automatically, unconsciously, what I call being on autopilot – transition almost always requires energy to learn or create new patterns in our lives that used to be routine. Finding the energy to create new routines is problem enough, but the real issue of transition has to do with our emotional response. Regardless of how they are triggered, major life changes generally bring a multitude of mixed feelings and experiences that help us cope and potentially lead us to a new level of personal growth. These emotions, however, may be uncomfortable.
 Transitions typically follow a path through four possible states: endings, a fallow phase, new starts, back to routine. This four state model helps us understand transitions, but be aware not every transition experience follows this process in a neat order.
Routine is a baseline state that carries an emotional sense that things are as they should be. Sometimes we experience changes but perceive them as routine. Change that has personal impact and implications, however, typically pushes us into other transition states.
Endings are a time of good-byes, and a time of disengaging ourselves from what we have previously known. Following a change, our inner selves need acknowledgment that something has closed before we can move on. Since endings involve loss, it is a stage marked by grief and all the feelings that accompany it.
The Fallow state is often experienced as a time of low energy, not being interested in anything, or simply confusion. People in this state may feel they are simply going through the motions of daily living or ‘not getting anything done’. This state can be greatly distressing - especially for executives and professionals who generally see themselves as energetic and decisive - often because they don’t understand why it is happening. I have seen people find great relief when they learn that the fallow state is an important part of the process of transition, like a field that lies fallow before a new crop can be planted.
New Starts are a time of energy resurgence, of vision, of trepidation, and of hope. Old things are given a new approach, and new things are tried. Sanction or acknowledgment of a new status is important for this stage.
When changes and transitions are imposed or due to negative circumstances, it’s easy to dwell on the endings and fail to see the inherent new beginning. Likewise, when transitions involve positive circumstances, endings can be overlooked. People can then be surprised when distressing feelings arise. It can be helpful to remind yourself that distress and negative feelings may be a sign that things have changed, rather than something is wrong.
Tips for Navigating Transition
- Recognize where you are in the process of transition – are you at an ending? In a fallow state? Or at a new start? Acknowledge your emotions, and use them to help you determine what transition state you are in. Similarly, recognizing what particular state of transition you are in may help explain the feelings you experience.
- Mark the transition. If there isn’t a ceremony, ritual, or other marker of the transition, create one. It can be as simple as writing down the things that are ending or that you are letting go, then throwing away the paper – or planting a sapling as a symbol of a new beginning. It can be private or shared with others. Be as simple or elaborate as you need.
- Talk to someone about what you are experiencing. We can weather rough seas when we have an anchor and a safe harbor. This is a time to call on the help of friends, family, or trusted advisors. Connections with others who are or have been in a similar situation can also be an invaluable source of support.
- Helplessness can be damaging. It is natural that feelings of helplessness arise in times of transition, particularly when changes have been imposed – for example, a job loss or unwanted divorce. Once it’s acknowledged, however, helplessness is a feeling that is best resisted. Put your focus on what you CAN do, not what you can’t. Be proactive in whatever sphere of influence you have. A terrific antidote for feelings of helplessness is the Serenity Prayer.
- Get some perspective. Contradictory as it sounds, it’s true both that your experience is unique and that you are not the only one to go through this. Take view of the transition from a larger or more distant perspective. Your spiritual beliefs may be helpful. So is a sense of humor.
- It’s a sign of strength to get help. Seek the advice of an appropriate professional at the first sign that you need it.
- Inner time and outer time may be experienced differently. No matter how quickly changes are made in your outer life, your inner self needs time to process. Take time for reflection.
- Even if your world is crashing around you, take responsibility for your attitude.
- Expose yourself to inspiration. This is a good time to indulge yourself in writings, movies, art, or music that has served as a source of inspiration. Comfort, solace, and new insights may await you in revisiting familiar items, while serendipitous learning springs from new material.
- Be kind to yourself.
top
Conflict & Cooperation In The Workplace
One topic that is of interest to most people in the workplace is conflict; how it works, how to avoid it, and how to deal with it when it occurs. It is indeed the rare organization that doesn't have to face the issue of conflict, and how to harness it so that it produces positive results rather than destruction.
In this article, we are going to look at some important elements of conflict, how it escalates over time, and suggest a few general strategies for dealing with it.
Two Types of Conflict
In the workplace (and almost any setting), you are likely to find two forms of conflict. The first is conflict about decisions, ideas, directions and actions. We will call this "substantive conflict" since it deals with disagreements about the substance of issues. The second form, "personalized conflict" is often called a personality conflict. In this form, the two parties simply "don't like each other much".
Substantive Conflict
Substantive conflict can occur on just about any issue, but its moving force is that the two parties simply disagree about an issue. This can be a good thing or a bad thing. Handled correctly parties in conflict can create, for themselves and those around them, the ability to resolve an issue with something creative, something better than either party's original position. Let's look at an example.
A branch manager and a staff member are in conflict over work hours. The branch manager expects all staff to work standard hours, beginning at 8:00 am so that the public will receive service starting first thing in the morning. The staff member wants to begin work at 9:00 am, because he has child care responsibilities. On several occasions the staff member has arrived late, which makes it appear to the manager that the employee is being deliberately unwilling to follow the rules.
Rather than the situation deteriorating, the parties approach the situation, not as one that should be won, but with an eye on solving a problem. After discussing the situation, (and understanding each other's needs), they realize that a) almost no customers call in the early morning b) the few that do can be handled by other staff who like to be in at 8:00, and c) there are more customers calling in between 4:00 and 5:00 pm. The parties agree that it makes sense to modify work hours. The result: a happier employee and better service.
The benefits would never have occurred if this conflict hadn't occurred, or if either party played the situation as if it was a game to be one by one person or the other. (Did anybody really lose in this situation?).
Personalized Conflict
While substantive conflict, if handled correctly, can be very productive, personalized conflict is almost never a good thing. There are several reasons. First personalized conflict is fuelled primarily by emotion (usually anger, frustration) and perceptions about someone else's personality, character or motives. When conflict is personalized and extreme each party acts as if the other is suspect as a person. Second, because personalized conflict is about emotion and not issues, problem solving almost never works, because neither party is really interested in solving a problem...in fact, in extreme cases, the parties go out of their ways to create new ones, imagined or real. Third, personalized conflicts almost always get worse over time, if they cannot be converted to substantive conflict. That is because each person expects problems, looks for them, finds them, and gets angrier.
Let's look at the previous example but change the way the situation was handled.
When the branch manager approached the staff member about the tardiness, he showed his irritation plainly. The staff member, already feeling under the gun, felt that the manager was being unfair, and accusatory, and became defensive. This, in turn, resulted in the manager "laying down the law", and that was how the situation was left. After the discussion, the manager felt the employee was lazy and making excuses, while the employee felt the boss was out to get him.
Not surprisingly, the situation got worse. Even when the staff member was a few minutes late, for good reason, the boss jumped on him like a "ton of bricks". The employee, angered and frustrated, started taking longer coffee breaks and was away "sick" more frequently. The situation became increasingly polarized, with other people being sucked in, and taking sides, privately.
Oddly enough, the initial perceptions of both boss and employee became the truth. After a while the boss acted as if he was out to get the employee, and the employee acted as if he was lazy and uncaring. The original issue was all but forgotten, as the parties developed an intense dislike of each other.
Solution Strategies Identification
When involved in a conflict situation, it is important that you are aware of whether you and the other party are dealing with a substantive conflict or a personalized one. It isn't always easy to tell them apart, and it is difficult to look honestly at oneself. Ask yourself the following questions:
Do I dislike the other person or get frustrated with him/her?
Do I see the other person as untrustworthy, and undeserving of respect?
Is my emotional reaction to the conflict appropriate to it's seriousness or lack thereof?
Do I really want to "win"?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, you may be setting yourself up for a personalized conflict that nobody can win in the long term.
With respect to the other person, one good indicator of a personalized conflict situation is that the person will try to counter your substantive point on the issue with a series of DIFFERENT reasons why you are wrong. For example, let's look at the following dialogue.
Manager: We can't have you come in at 9:00 am because we need to answer the phones.
Employee: That makes sense, but I checked and we get only one or two calls between 8:00 and 9:00 but we get between ten and twenty calls in the later afternoon.
Manager: Well, maybe, but if you come in later, then soon everyone else will want to...
Note that in this case, the manager isn't really problem solving, but trying to find reasons to refuse the request, either because he doesn't "like" the other person, or for some other emotional reason we don't know about.
Move To Substantive Issues
Even in situations where both you and the other party have personalized the conflict, you can work to focus on specific issues. You have no direct control over another person, but you have control over yourself. By moving to the issues, and staying there, you will also encourage the other person to do so.
It isn't easy, of course. The trick is to try to put aside your negative perceptions about the other person, and not to dwell on them. That's an internal thing. Every time you think to yourself "what an idiot"(or all the other negative things), you make it that more difficult to stay focused on problem- solving, rather than winning, or getting your own way.
Work To Prevent Personalization
It is rare that personalization occurs just on the basis of two incompatible personalities. Usually, personalization occurs because conflict on substantive issues is handled badly. That is, one or both parties behaves in non-cooperative ways.
top
Team Building and The Manager's Role
There has been much made of the importance of teams in the workplace. Whether you are implementing TQM, or just want to increase effectiveness or employee morale, developing effective cohesive teams is a good tactic. But teams aren’t simple. We are going to devote this article to examining some principles related to team building with particular emphasis on the role of the manager or supervisor.
What Is A Team?
Mark Sanborn, an expert on teams, outlines a few characteristics of a team.
First, Sanborn defines a team as being composed of a highly communicative group of people. Poor communication means no team.
Second, Sanborn suggests that a team must have members with different backgrounds, skills and abilities, so that the team can pool these things to be effective. In other words a team with no diversity in it will be unlikely to work in an innovative fashion.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, a team must have a shared sense of mission. Whether we are talking about a temporary work improvement team, or a branch, all members must share the sense of mission.
Fourth, a team must have clearly identified goals. A team must be able to gauge its success, and know what it is trying to accomplish.
How Does A Team Differ From A Work Group?
Sanborn suggests the following differences:
On Competition:
Work groups tend to compete inwardly, with members competing against each other for favor, recognition, etc. High performing teams compete, but with those outside the organization.
On Focus:
Work groups tend to be task-oriented and characterized by members who follow their own personal agendas. High-performing teams are goal-oriented. Members work towards the achievement of the team goals and agenda, rather than pulling in different directions.
On Style:
Work groups tend to be autocratic and hierarchical in nature. Teams, on the other hand, tend to be participative and self-steering within the goals of the team.
On Tolerance:
Work groups tend to tolerate each other, while teams tend to enjoy each other. Differences in teams are welcome and encouraged, while in work groups, differences and disagreements are suppressed.
On Risk:
Work groups tend to avoid risk and maintain the status quo. High performing teams tend to accept risk.
The Manager's Role
It is unfortunate that many managers want to stimulate the development of high-performance teams, but do not see themselves as active players in the process. Sometimes, this comes from a mistaken idea that a team should be self-contained and owned by the team members. In fact, teams should be owned by its members, but the manager or supervisor plays THE KEY ROLE in setting the climate for the development of teams.
We can't overstate this point. If you want to encourage team functioning, it is very likely that you, yourself will have to change. If you don't, any team approach is doomed to failure. If you look at teams in other contexts, you will quickly realize that leadership determines success. A sports team has a coach, a symphony orchestra has a conductor. These teams don't spontaneously develop without effective leadership, but develop and grow with the help and guidance of a leader whose job is not to control, but to teach, encourage, and organize when necessary. A good way to describe the role of the manager is a catalyst, a force that causes things to happen for other people, and the team.
Not only is the manager's role critical, but it changes over the lifespan of the team-building process. In the beginning of the process of team-building, the team members may need a good deal of help developing their mission and purpose, identifying what they want to accomplish, and, more importantly, with the development of interpersonal and group skills such as conflict resolution, meeting management, etc. They may also need constant reminder that the manager is serious about the team, meaning that its activities and decisions or recommendations will be implemented wherever humanly possible. The manager may even be called upon to act as a mediator, when conflict cannot be resolved by the team members.
As a team grows and matures, the manager might become an equal team member, or may find that the team doesn't require ongoing involvement. Or not.
Some Critical Leadership Factors
We can describe some important leadership factors that will affect the team building process, and its success. While these are particularly applicable to the formal work unit leader (i.e. the manager), they apply also to team members who are performing in a leadership capacity.
- Highly developed inter-personal skills and understanding of some basic psychology regarding what makes people commit to, and perform.
- Must recognize the importance of balancing between tasks (getting the job done) and people (ensuring that team members are satisfied with the process of getting the work done).
- Willingness to listen and ability to communicate. Leaders must have a preference to listening and understanding rather than controlling and talking.
- Show Constancy of Purpose. Leaders must commit themselves to the team, and not give up when the going gets rough, or success is slow to come.
- Show Consistency In Behavior. Leaders must behave in a consistent manner regarding teamwork. Leaders who sometimes encourage team process and sometimes bypass the team confuse the hell out of everyone. When this happens, nobody takes teams seriously.
- Model Desirable Team Behavior. The team will take its cues from its leader, or the manager. You cannot break inter-personal rules, not listen, and use autocratic prerogatives, and expect members of your team to believe that you REALLY value working together.
- Be Able To Deal With Problem Team Members. Sometimes a team does not have the internal resources to deal with a member that is uncooperative or so unskilled in group behavior that he or she becomes a barrier. A manager must be able to coach when necessary, problem-solve, establish consensus and mediate.
Conclusion
We have outlined a few of the basic elements of a team, and have suggested that the manager must be able to contribute to the establishment and maintenance of the team.
top |
"