Which Priority First? The Adjacent Possible.

The best laid plans....

It's that time of year for personal goal-setting. Similarly many new strategic plans are set in motion or get updated. But, it is always a challenge to determine what to do first. Everything seems to be a priority.

I discovered a term from biology called "adjacent possible" when reading Steven Johnson's book Where Good Ideas Come From that helps in choosing which big thing to do before another. As he explains, "the adjacent possible is a kind of shadow future, hovering on the edges of the present state of things, a map of all the ways in which the present can re-invent itself."

But, only certain changes can happen first. In simpler terms, it's like being in a room with four doors where one door is the best possible to open. The others lead nowhere "on the edges of the present" either because it's too soon for them to be opened or they never were a good idea.

However, once a door is opened the boundaries change and the next big thing might be different than you conceived it to be back in time. A new "adjacent possible" is before you, as if you were on a continuous exploration.

So, what does this mean for setting priorities? Current mind research indicates that we can focus only on about four big ideas at a time. So, narrow down your priorities to something manageable. Then, choose the one which "hovers closest on the edge of the present". The one that will help all the others along.

Project management types might call this breaking things down into milestones or smaller steps. Yes, that's true. But, this is really about what path to choose in the first place before breaking it down further or making a work plan or road map. The priority determines the path. The path shifts the world as you explore.

Does fact-free leadership have to be a common fact of life?

I am a scientist at heart. Being curious all my life, I have pondered big questions and small. For example, if the universe did not exist, would there be nothing? But, what is nothing? Stephen Hawking and many other physicists have enlightened me somewhat but the nature of the universe still seems highly mysterious to me.

OK. That’s a little deep. Nevertheless, I get pretty riled up if it’s obvious that our leaders, particularly those in the political realm, fail to be like a scientist exploring all relevant facets of a situation.

For example, I watched an interview of Lawrence Martin recently about his book Harperland. He could hardly contain his exasperation at the extent to which under Stephen Harper’s leadership facts in any realm are routinely ignored, unless they align with his view. The foundation of Martin’s training in journalism is to seek the truth as it is currently understood and verify with multiple sources. Although knowledge is always in flux, looking for the best of what we know is a fairly good strategy for anyone, including those in leadership and management positions. Otherwise we risk going down pathways that can come back to haunt us.

Lawrence’s bottom line is that democracy is weakened when our political leaders do not pay attention to evidence when shaping policy and strategy. Since organizations in which we work are of necessity becoming more democratic in order to manage risk, innovate and survive, “fact-free” leadership at the political level let alone in an organization can cause unnecessary problems. Not being democratic in approach as a leader seems odd and out of synch with the prevailing view that leaders and managers benefit from being “adaptive” in light of “swampy” problems.

Much has been written on the role of personal bias in decision-making. It plagues us all and is particularly dangerous in organizations as numerous management researchers have documented. While we have some companies that are hundreds of years old, such as The Bay, Stora and Twinings, most fail in 50 years or less (Aries de Geus, The Living Company). Poor decision making is at the root of most failures.

Our cultural upbringing, education and experiences over time all conspire to blind us. To make good decisions requires hard work and time usually though teamwork. As we perpetually live in time-constrained environments and are faced with a vast universe of conflicting knowledge, it is easier to fall back on conventional wisdom until something disrupts it.

So, how do we test conventional wisdom before it boxes us in? How can we challenge our biases when we are not even sure what they are?

Richard Neustadt and Ernest May in their classic book, The Uses of History for Decision Makers offer a methodology:

1. What do you know?

2. What is unknown?

3. What are you presuming?

4. What is the situation like (from past history)?

5. How does the situation differ from others in the past?

6. What is the action supposed to accomplish?

After studying decisions both good and bad made by American Presidents in the 20th century, Neustadt and May concluded that past conditions can offer clues to future possibilities. Look back to look ahead, so to speak. A little bit of critical thinking can go a long way towards better decision making.

The ability to do critical thinking and problem-solving is one of the seven basic skills most often cited by educators for students to succeed in the knowledge economy according to Tony Wagner, a Harvard-based education expert and author of The Global Achievement Gap. Two others are collaborating across networks and curiosity with imagination. These apply equally well to the desired skills for people in the workplace especially for managers and leaders.

Fact-filled leadership with imagination will certainly help fill the global achievement gap. Einstein was right when he said that “the formulation of a problem is often more essential than the solution”. But this cannot happen without an open mind which counterbalances “fact-free” leadership.

It turns out that such openness can enlighten us, educate us and, as a consequence, change our minds. Such a journey is transformative or in Nelson Mandela’s words, “Education is the most powerful weapon with which you can change the world”. It is also a daily endeavour.

The Rage to Master. Do You Have It?

We inherit and we also become.

 

---David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us

 

As David Shenk so clearly points out, “talent is not a thing. It’s a process”. But it is so ingrained in our culture that geniuses are born, talent is scarce and there’s only so much you can change. Is this why we have to search far and wide for great managers and leaders? Is that why when we ask ourselves, “Who was the best boss you ever had?” we can usually come up with one but not two or more?

 

It turns out that we can all become more than we are IF we are intensely motivated to do so. Instead of the “nature: nurture” argument, “dynamic development” is the new paradigm for talent and well-being. Mediocrity need not be our destiny.

 

Since talent is a process, it can flower at any time in a person’s life. If you manage a team or larger you can become more effective at inspiring others to greater heights. If you are a parent, you can coach your children to reach beyond where they are now. The caveat is that you must work on developing yourself at the same time. We learn from those who are masters in their own right.

 

The only way is through “deliberate practice”, a term coined by Anders Ericcson and his colleagues to explain that talent is not the cause but the result of something. Read: lots of hard work and practice for hours on end interspersed with many failures on the road to greater success and mastery.

 

But how can you stoke your fires and those around you? How can you ramp up your “rage to master”, that “never-let-go willfulness and focus” to grow?

 

Here are some tips from the researchers on helping children develop. They resonate for adults too:

• Nurture and encourage: turn up the volume and the frequency of positive and genuine feedback to create an environment of possibility;
• Set high expectations as we develop to what the environment demands;
• Embrace failure as a time to learn rather than as a built in limitation;
• Encourage the growth mindset in each and every person. Open up their minds to the reality that their abilities are not fixed but are “malleable” and can develop with practice

"Broaden-and-Build": Positive Emotions are a Means to Many Useful Ends

Nothing is good or bad.
But thinking makes it so.

---Shakespeare

 

Shakespeare’s astute observations of the impact of how we think are as relevant today as four centuries ago. The “good” or “bad” show up as positive or negative emotions about an event. As thoughts determine our emotions and emotions drive motion, how we think matters. Good decisions depend on how we deal with the emotions associated with the issues at hand. Managers beware! You hold the emotional environment in your hands. Individuals beware! Your personal success depends on seeing the glass half full.

 

Environmentalists know this so well. Despite the proven reality of global warming and the detrimental impact of our throw-away society on the environment, our concerns far outstrip our actions to save the planet. The problem, according to branding experts, is that we don’t respond well to negative messages, especially those that seem beyond our reach. Futerra Sustainability Communications in its “Branding Biodiversity: The New Nature Message” offers these key messages to justify a positive approach to engaging people to act responsibly with respect to the environment:

• Loss is all about extinction.
• Love is all about awe and wonder at nature.
• Need is the economic benefit of nature.
• Action is messages that ask us to do something.

Futerra emphasizes that people have to be inspired and to see how they can act locally, within their own day-by-day realms.

 

Barbara Fredrickson’s broaden and build theory of positive emotions speaks to this. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill researcher argues that “positive emotions… produce optimal functioning, not just within the present, pleasant moment, but over the long-term as well”. Positive emotions help people to engage and by association to produce more satisfactory, quality outcomes.

 

Harvard’s Teresa Amabile, who specializes in creativity (what it is, how it is squelched or nurtured), would agree. Her considerable research on how “affect” relates to creativity at work points over and over again to the same conclusions: “Creative activity appears to be an affectively charged event” influencing “task quality, productivity and efficiency”. Why? The positive feelings make us more open to exploring novelty.

 

While there is a role for negative emotions in our lives (for example, spurring us to quick action under sudden life-threatening situations), positive emotions build our personal resilience and resources. They literally widen our moment-by-moment array of thoughts-to-actions tool kit. Hence they increase the probability of achieving better results at whatever we are up to. Fredrickson calls this ability of positive emotions to open us up to more possibilities “the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions”.

 

What are the positive emotions that make up a “broaden-and-build” supply? Four primary ones stand out:

1. Joy spurs us on to play (unscripted), to reach beyond what we know and to look for creative options. It promotes skill acquisition.
2. Interest urges us to explore, be open to new experiences, possibilities and information. It spurs us on to investigate. Interest adds to our knowledge base.
3. Contentment is related to tranquility and serenity, savouring current life circumstances and recent successes. We feel more "together". The result is often a new sense of self and a new world view.
4. Love, which is a combination of many emotions sparked by safe, close relationships, generates the joy and interest precursors of action.

Fredrickson also mentions pride and gratitude as important catalysts of broadening and building enduring adaptability. The latter can be developed simply by writing down each day three to five reasons why we are grateful.

 

The impact of positive emotions are their greatest legacy: when life takes a turn for the worst, as it does on a regular basis, the personal resources accrued from practicing and creating positive emotions enable us to face any “threats” and “survive” well through the event.

 

Fredrickson sees this durability as evolutionary. When our ancestors faced threats to life and limb their greater individual resources improved their odds of survival and thus the opportunity to reproduce.

 

What is the key message for individuals? Work hard every day at seeing the silver lining in life’s encounters. The subsequent thought-to-emotion-to-motion chain reaction will build personal resilience and as a consequence a path of greater success and satisfaction than not.

 

Organizational survival is no different. Managers play a huge role in creating the context for positive emotions to take hold, multiply and feed innovation and well-being. One easy way is to support employees in making progress in their work every day. That feeling of progress produces “powerfully positive emotions”!

The Upside to Tiger's Legacy

Good judgment comes from experience.

Experience comes from bad judgment.

---Oscar Wilde

The rich and powerful have an extra burden to bear: resisting the temptations that easily come their way and in so doing demonstrating to others strength of character. If fame comes early in life, such as in the case of Tiger Woods, the test of character is even more difficult. It’s easy to get “messed up” if the normal process of growing up is interrupted. If parents and significant others around a young person get caught up in the “not normal” environment, checks and balances becomes endangered species. The same applies in an organization. If a boss’s “bad” behaviour is allowed to run amok wreaking emotional havoc among employees, “good” character takes a back seat to “anything goes”. The collateral damage is considerable.

In the early days of my career in the health field debate raged about who was responsible for personal health. The individual? The system? A combination? Stop “blaming the victim” loomed large among the proponents that it’s the system that does it. Other more hard-nosed pundits and researchers said flat out that when push comes to shove the individual is responsible. In the end, the consensus is that both matter. Which is more important depends on the situation.

With Tiger, something went awry in the development of his value-system. He joined a burgeoning group of sports celebrities, politicians and CEOs who have lost their way and been found out. The system of support that Tiger had, whatever it was, was insufficient to help him self-correct.

The upside to Tiger’s downfall is the lesson for the younger generation of golfers. Although his ex-wife Elin Nordegren professes to have been totally unaware of his infidelities, you can bet that within the golf community the guys knew but kept their counsel. That the most famous athlete in the world who happens to be a pro golfer can be caught and fall from grace leaves a strong message for all up and coming young pro golfers and athletes in general: watch your values and habits. They could come back to haunt you.

Thoughts and habits do define one’s character. We all have a choice and it helps to have a few stern friends along the way.

Three Ways to Improve Group Brainstorming

Brainstorming has come under heavy criticism by academics in recent years. Originally developed by Alex Osborn in 1953, his promise to turn groups into creative idea-producers has not lived up to the hype. Current research repeatedly shows that although people might feel more creative in a group, the raw number of ideas developed and the originality of those ideas are consistently inferior to individuals working alone.

Yet, groups are a necessary part of working life, to innovate, make decisions and get work done. What can be done then to improve the quantity and quality of the ideas within a group setting?


Build in Time for Individual Thinking

When our minds have time to wander, ideas bubble up. Common answers to the question, “Where and when do you get your best ideas?” are driving the car, the shower or bathtub, walking, reading or noticing something that triggers an idea for something completely unrelated.

How can we duplicate this in the workplace?

The key is to provide some structure for reflecting on a problem by allowing each person in the group time to ponder in advance of the meeting. A pre-group meeting worksheet of open-ended questions is one tool, to be filled out voluntarily. If provided well in advance, ideas will have time to percolate even when a person is not actually filling in the questionnaire The ideas generated will be more in number and novelty and can be drawn upon throughout the group discussion.


Be Open to and Encourage Dissent

We have a tendency to bend to the loudest voices in a group or the consensus too early without considering a variety of options. That undermines the eventual quality of the decisions.

But, if a group deliberately takes time to respect a minority view, premature adoption of an idea is offset. Some studies show that it takes only one “authentic” dissenter to reduce conformity by two-thirds. That doesn’t mean someone should be a “devil’s advocate” for the sake of it. The easy way to manufacture dissent is for someone in the group to encourage members to challenge assumptions, to take a “360 view” of the situation.


Try Speedstorming

Speedstorming is a structured social interaction something like speeddating. It has been used successfully by researchers at a conference or other such group meetings to find potential collaborators. Since two to three people often create more ideas mainly because they have more “air time” than in a larger group, speedstorming could be one way to structure an exploration for good ideas and solutions for any situation.

Imagine pairs of chairs in a line facing each other equating to the number of persons in the group. A person is seated in each chair. For five minutes each person-pair shares ideas about a particular dilemma or goal, preferably developed by each individual in advance of the initial pairing. Each person adds to her own list. “Aha’s” are noted. Then, one person moves while the other stays seated and the exercise is repeated.

After the exercise, reconvene the group or groups for a fresh look at the challenge with many more ideas at hand.


These three methods and variations thereof help to focus a search for new and useful ideas, lessen the tendency to “group think” and mute the growth of an “us and them” dynamic. They enhance what Alex Osborn and other creativity experts know is fundamental to “thinking outside the box”: generating ideas (diverging) and assessing them (converging). The updated twist is two-fold: provide conditions for individual thinking whenever possible (or at least in pairs or triads) and let in/weave in the “dissenting” notions as they arise. The hard and fast rule of not judging while creating actually reduces the quantity and quality of ideas.


Combining Individual and Group Thinking

Fighting group think

SpeedStorming

How to reduce government:scare away the young folks

It's walking the fine line of being a positive leader of the federal public service, but at the same time pushing them and not being captive to them.

---Stephen Harper, CBC Radio Interview

Watch what you wish for, as the saying goes. The fine leadership line has to be the right one and one of the styles clearly unworkable for Gen X and Y is not “my way or the highway” or something mushy called “positive leadership”. They want the right kind of leadership at the right time, often characterized by “What do you think?” or “What do you know?” or “How can we get to this exciting goal?”. Come to think of it, so do baby boomers. But, they are already captive and awaiting their pensions.

The latest skirmish between Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and federal civil servants on the Stats Canada long survey (now to be made voluntary which messes up the reliability of the data) illustrates to the younger generations that only the submissive should apply to the federal government for a job. It’s a brilliant strategy by a leader who wants to downsize without having to pay the costs of letting people go. Decide what you want in advance. Pretend that you have consulted. Pay no attention to any contrary evidence. Stare down the protesters, many of whom are experts in their fields about the matter in question. Do what you want anyway. The downsizing takes care of itself quite tidily. Speeds up the numbers who can retire but haven’t. Scares off any talented folks, especially the young, who want to make a difference.

Gen X and Gen Y want to be involved in decision-making, want to feel that their opinions count and most certainly to have fun. A dictatorial culture of fear is not on their checklist as a nice place to work. Further, as a highly educated bunch, they know a thing or two about “the truth”. The evidence from research does merit serious consideration in the decision making process. Debate, dissent and “brainstorming” help steer the path to solutions that have lasting value.

All generations and cultures value authoritative leadership: being visionary and passionate about a cause, valuing teamwork and getting the job done. Few like authoritarian leadership as it muffles wonderful talent and the potential for great innovation. Stephen Harper may only have meant that his opinion matters too and that he should be "authoritative" as a leader. But, in practice, his fine line seems to be bending toward "push" than "positive".