Organizational Polarities

In doing further exploration into polarity management, I came across this neat image that truly exemplifies the adage of “a picture is worth more than 1,000 words”:

tensionsframework

Though to be fair, it’s a picture of mostly words 🙂

It was developed by Robert Quinn as part of his book, The Positive Organization, which is now added to my reading queue.

But basic familiarity with polarity management is enough to see the value of this diagram even on a standalone basis, as a really powerful way to capture some of the core organizational polarities, highlighting the key positive and negative of each pole.

tensionsframeworksample

I view it as a great tool for jump-starting any organizational polarities conversation. By providing a crude-but-complete (negatives and positives of both poles) jump-off point for the conversation, it can help accelerate the shared empathy and understanding of the opposing views and move participants further along in navigating the more nuanced aspects of the tension.

 

Organizational Polarities

Are you a Segmentor or an Integrator?

Work-life balance is always a hot topic in organizational circles. Even if you buy into this loaded distinction, good advice on how to improve it is hard to come by.

Megan Huth of Google came up with a pretty interesting insight on that topic:

Segmentors vs Integrators: Google’s work-life-balance research

She started with a distinction between two work/non-work time management strategies first introduced by Christena Nippert-Eng:

  1. Segmentors are people who create rigid boundaries between their personal and work lives. They reported that: “In my life, there is a clear boundary between my career and my non-work roles.”
  2. Integrators are people who blur the lines been work and home, switching back and forth between the two. This group often agreed that: “It is often difficult to tell where my work life ends and my non-work life begins.”

And then looked for correlations between the way Google employees classified their existing and desired time management strategy with the way they rate their overall well-being. She found that:

Regardless of preference, Segmentors were significantly happier with their well-being than Integrators. Additionally, Segmentors were more than twice as likely to be able to detach from work (when they wanted to). Less than a third of Googlers behaved like Segmentors and over half of Integrators said they wished they could segment better.

That latter part: over 2/3 of Google employees are NOT segmentors, and 50% of them want to be, highlighted both the size of the opportunity and an interesting path forward in improving employee’s overall well-being.

In the remainder of the article Megan outlines several strategies and techniques that Google experimented with, attempting moving the needle in that direction.

Are you a Segmentor or an Integrator?

The Real Reason People Won’t Change

Another great piece by Kegan and Lahey:

The Real Reason People Won’t Change

The common wisdom approach to changing behavior typically looks something like this: We make a genuine commitment to change our behavior (“I am committed to losing weight”); we identify the current current behaviors, or lack thereof which get in the way in accomplishing our commitment (“I eat too much unhealthy food”, “I don’t exercise enough”) and we attempt to do more of the good stuff, and less of the bad stuff. Often times, we fail. Why?

Well, what if there is a perfectly good reason for our current behaviors? what if they are driven by other hidden commitments, which are based on some big and fundamental assumptions we hold about life? If that is the case, it is easy to see how any attempt to directly change those behaviors, putting those big assumptions at risk, will encounter strong unconscious resistance, which would lead to a failed attempt at changing them.

This is Kegan and Lahey’s “Immunity To Change” (ITC) theory, in a nutshell.

While it makes it clearer that true and sustained behavior change is much harder than how many might think it is, it also shows a more reliable path for driving effective behavior change: Rather than try to modify existing behaviors by tackling them head-on, we need to adopt a deeper and more indirect approach. We need to first identify the hidden commitments that drive them, then uncover the big assumptions on which they are based, and finally design safe, modest experiments that can help us test those assumptions and reduce them from absolute truths to more refined statements that only hold true in specific circumstances. Only then, can we let go of some of our existing hidden commitments and drive sustainable, long-lasting change.

demystifying_change-1

 

The Real Reason People Won’t Change

Attachment at (not to) Work

Adult Attachment Styles in the Workplace by P.D. Harms

Is a wonderful research review of the applications of Attachment Theory in the context of work.

The theory was initially developed through decades of pioneering work by Harry Harlow (1950s),  John Bowlby (1960s) and Mary Ainsworth (1970s) to classify and explore the relationships between infants and their caregivers. In recent decades, it has been expanded to be used as a tool for understanding adult relationships, initially between romantic partners and more recently in broader contexts, like the kind of relationships that adults form at work. The theory distinguishes between 4 attachment styles based on levels of anxiety and avoidance: secure, anxious/pre-occupied, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant.

Harms’ paper gives a good overview of the evolution of attachment theory, its relationship with contemporary personality theory (Five Factor Model), its application in the workplace and future directions of research on the latter.

Before we proceed, a cautionary note: I haven’t done due diligence on the research cited in his paper. So the connections and correlations listed below should be reviewed through a filter of healthy skepticism.

Leadership emergence and effectiveness:

  • A pattern of insecure attachment relationships was associated with the failure to develop the independence necessary to be a good leader.
  • Securely attached team members were more likely to emerge as leaders in experimental groups.
  • Individuals with secure or avoidant attachment were more likely to be nominated as a leader by their peers than individuals with anxious/ambivalent orientations.
  • Secure attachment has been associated with a relational (as opposed to task) leadership style and avoidant attachment was associated with a tendency towards task-oriented leadership.
  • Securely attached leaders were more likely to delegate while avoidant leaders reported the least amount of delegation.
  • Leaders with an anxious orientation were described by their followers as having lower task efficacy while officers with avoidant orientations were described as having lower emotional efficacy.
  • Both leader and follower attachment insecurity were found to contribute to follower burnout and job satisfaction.
  • While secure attachment was associated with higher scores across transformational leadership dimensions. There was also a general tendency for avoidant/ dismissing attachment to be negatively associated transformational leadership.
  • Individuals whose relationships with parents could generally be described as secure were more likely to describe their leadership style as charismatic.
  • The followers of securely attached leaders described their leaders as being more effective than the followers of insecurely attached leaders. Those followers also reported higher levels of job satisfaction.

Trust:

  • Both avoidance and anxious attachment have been linked with lower levels of trust and subsequent caregiving behaviors.
  • Secure individuals were more willing to open themselves up and disclose information to others.
  • Significant positive relationships between secure attachment and trust in supervisors, peers, and upper management.
  • Having an avoidant attachment relationship with one’s supervisor was associated with lower levels of trust and, in turn, career satisfaction.
  • In a study of the reasons for developing trust with others, securely attached individuals tended to report that their goal was to gain intimacy. By contrast, insecure individuals reported that gaining a sense of security was of more importance to them. Further, in response to trust violations, secure individuals reported attempting to communicate with partners to resolve the problem, avoidant individuals reported distancing themselves from those relationships, and anxious individuals reported increases in rumination and worry.

Job attitudes, stress, health, coping, and work–family balance:

  • Securely attached individuals reported significantly higher satisfaction with most aspects of their workplace (e.g. coworkers, job security, recognition, etc.). Secure individuals were also less likely to report hostile outbursts in the workplace, were less prone to psychosomatic illnesses, and less prone to experiencing actual physical illnesses.
  • Insecurely attached workers reported greater anxiety over rejection by others if their work was of poor quality.
  • Anxious individuals in particular felt unappreciated and misunderstood in the workplace.
  • In an experimental study of reactions to a supervisor being dismissive or distant, insecurely attached individuals reported that they would be more prone to experiencing anger or distress emotions.
  • In terms of burnout in the workplace, researchers found strong relationships with insecure attachment in a large sample of working adults. Interestingly, the effects of attachment on feelings of burnout were largely mediated by team cohesion and perceived organizational fairness.
  • Individuals with avoidant attachment reported significantly less support-seeking behaviors and more attempts at distancing.
  • Anxious/ambivalent individuals were less prone to use using emotion-based coping strategies when faced with highly stressful situations.
  • Securely attached individuals were less likely to report stressful situations as a threat to themselves and were significantly more likely to describe them as being opportunities for growth and challenge.
  • Secure individuals were more likely to engage in support-seeking behaviors while those with avoidant attachment were significantly less likely to seek support when facing a problem.
  • Securely attached individuals were less likely to report that work was interfering with their home life. Moreover, insecurely attached individuals were more likely to report that their work (as opposed to their home life) was more important to them in terms of their overall happiness.
  • Securely attached individuals tended to report positive spillover effects between work and home while individuals with insecure attachment orientations were significantly more likely to report negative spillover between work and home life. Avoidant individuals were also significantly more likely to report attempts at segmentation of the two domains.

Job performance:

  • Both avoidant and anxious attachment were associated with less instrumental helping behaviors in the workplace.
  • Individuals higher on avoidant attachment are particularly unlikely to report engaging in volunteer activities.
  • In terms of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs), significant positive relationships have been found with secure attachment in a number of studies. Similarly, high scores on anxious and avoidant attachment have also been associated with reduced OCBs in the workplace.
  • Individuals with higher levels of anxious and avoidant attachment report putting less effort into team tasks. In addition, individuals with higher levels of avoidant attachment are less likely to help other group members or facilitate team cohesion.
  • Individuals with avoidant attachment were more likely to report engaging in Counter-Productive Work Behaviors (CWBs), but anxious and secure individuals were not.

Our attachment style tends to solidify very early in life, based on the relationships we had with out caregivers in early childhood. But there’s strong evidence of plasticity in attachment styles, with the right interventions. Most heavily-researched interventions tend to focus on early childhood (here‘s a good example), but Harms cites one study of white-collar workers in which participants showed more than a half standard-deviation change on anxious and avoidant attachment scale scores over the course of 18 weeks of therapy.

If attachment styles are indeed at the core of so many work-related perceptions and behaviors, then interventions aimed at changing attachment styles offer a promising return on investment. But before we rush off to modify the attachment style of any anxious or avoidant adult, the fact that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of adults are insecurely attached should give us pause. The taxonomy used in attachment theory is not judgement-free (secure = good, anxious/avoidant = not-so-good) and likely introduces some bias which focuses research on validating the benefits of secure attachment and disadvantages of insecure attachment. If insecure attachment offers no adaptive advantages, how come so many of us are insecurely attached?

While still in its infancy, new research attempts to explore the impact of attachment styles beyond individual relationships. Some preliminary findings suggest that a social group containing members with different attachment patterns may be more conducive to survival than a homogeneous group of securely attached individuals. Specifically, individuals with an anxious attachment style, are more likely to pick up on early warning signs of an upcoming threat; and individuals with an avoidant attachment style strong self-preservation instinct are more likely to (inadvertently) identify solutions that will help with group-preservation.

The late Andy Grove, Intel’s legendary CEO is credited with the motto: “only the paranoid survive”. Care to take a guess at his attachment style?

 

Attachment at (not to) Work

Changing Mental Models

I came across this decade-old gem by Jeffrey Pfeffer while doing some follow-up research following a workshop we did at AltSchool facilitated by the Trium Group:

Changing Mental Models: HR’s Most Important Task

Pfeffer perfectly frames the topics in the first paragraph:

Here is a paradox. In the financial markets, investment information is rapidly and efficiently diffused. New product and service innovations, be they junk bonds, new forms of options, or debt securities that allocate and price risk in an innovative fashion, get rapidly copied by competitors. But in the “managerial knowledge” marketplace, there is little evidence of much diffusion of ideas or innovative business models and management practices.

And follows by giving some compelling examples that illustrates his case in the way that competitors struggled to imitate the success of Southwest Airlines, Harrah’s Entertainment and Whole Foods had in their respective domains.

He argues that at the root of this problem are the mental-models and mindsets of senior leaders:

[I]n order to get different results, you must do different things.. [I]n order to do different things, at least on a consistent, systematic basis over a sustained time period, companies and their people actually must begin to think differently. That’s why mental models affect organizational performance and why they are a high leverage place for human resources to focus its organizational interventions.

Every organizational intervention or management practice—be it some form of incentive compensation, performance management system, or set of measurement practices—necessarily relies on some implicit or explicit model of human behavior and beliefs about the determinants of individual and organizational performance. It is therefore just logical that:

(a) success or failure is determined, in part, by these mental models or ways of viewing people and organizations, and

(b) in order to change practices and interventions, mindsets or mental models must inevitably be an important focus of attention.

He then gives the detailed example that the Trium Group uses to help leaders see the different between a “responsible” and a “victim” mindsets, which I will not share here so I won’t spoil your fun in reading the actual paper.

Lastly, Pfeffer leaves us with the following point to consider:

In addition to being concerned with the company culture, human resources must be concerned with the mental models and mind-sets of the people in the company, particularly its leaders. Because what we do comes from what and how we think, intervening to uncover and affect mental models may be the most important and high-leverage activity HR can perform.

Reflecting on my own personal experience, this certainly rings true. However the one example referenced in the paper on exploring (not even changing) different mindsets, is not a strong enough outline for a more systemic approach for identifying the most critical mindsets that inhibit an organization’s performance and then taking proactive action to change them. It looks like more research, on my behalf at least, will be required in order to turn this powerful idea into an even more powerful tool.

 

 

Changing Mental Models

The Neuroscience of Trust

An interesting HBR piece by Paul Zak:

The Neuroscience of Trust 

Based on his more than decade long research, Paul argues that creating an organization in which employees remain highly engaged in the long-term goes can be enabled by creating a high-trust culture. His research shows that higher levels of trust lead to noticeable improvements in performance.

In his research, Paul identified 8 managerial behaviors that foster trust:

  1. Recognize excellence
  2. Induce “challenge stress” (achievable stretch goals)
  3. Give people discretion in how they do their job
  4. Enable job crafting
  5. Share information broadly
  6. Intentionally build relationships
  7. Facilitate whole-person growth
  8. Show vulnerability

Finally, Paul leaves use with a memorable rule-of-thumb insight to keep in mind:

Joy = Trust * Purpose

trust

Even though the level of academic rigor here does not fully meet my bar, there is real disciplined scientific research that’s backing Paul’s thesis in this piece; which sadly is more that can be said for the vast majority of HBR pieces that attempt to make claims with a similar level of certainty.

 

The Neuroscience of Trust