Читать книгу CONFESSIONS OF A CORPORATE SHAMAN - Harrison Snow - Страница 26

The systemic use of self requires that you put some inner space between you, the observer, and you, the doer. Observing the group as a leader or a facilitator is part of your job. Getting yourself out of the way so you see with objective clarity requires a degree of self-confrontation. Everything that happens becomes a data point that informs your assessment of what else needs to happen. The following case study provides insight into how the “self” can be used as a change management tool.

Ron was asked to facilitate an office retreat off-site. It was supposed to be a straightforward one-day event. The organization was looking to move from one-off projects to conducting capacity building at the national or transnational level. The purpose of the retreat was to discuss this significant change in mission and the strategy needed to achieve it.

The leader for this group seemed unusually nervous that the retreat would devolve into a free for all of complaints and accusations. His concern, while extreme, was not unfounded. Morale was low and frustrations high, given the uncertainty people were experiencing. Ron tried to assure the manager that discontent would not morph into rabid rebellion. A better decision is reached when people can disagree openly with each other and their leader in a professional manner.

The leader seemed mollified at first, but he continued to voice his criticism and displeasure as the date for the retreat drew closer. These expressions were easier for Ron to take when he reflected that he only had to deal with the manager for a few weeks. The staff, however, faced their manager’s moods every day. He was treating Ron like he treated others, so from a data collection perspective there was no reason to take this personally. He was demanding a guarantee of safety, yet a sense of safety is ultimately an inside job. His hypervigilance ironically made people feel less secure. The day before the retreat the manager demanded that Ron not allow any “wallowing” by staff in self-pity or blame. Ron countered that if people were forced to be relentlessly positive they would be convinced that the retreat was a failure. The manager nodded but did not look convinced.

Ron left the meeting feeling uneasy. Would the manager ask people to be frank and then chastise the first person who spoke up? Would he let others give voice to their views or would he impose his own version of reality? If it were the latter, the retreat would be long, dull, and unproductive.

Taking responsibility for his part, Ron asked himself where he might have sent mixed messages during the planning meetings, putting one foot on the gas and the other on the brakes. He was not the uber-leader type who could not tolerate dissent, right? A lengthy conversation with his wife followed. She pointed out how he also acted in ways that were driven by fear. Ron realized he had his own inner tyrant that could come down hard on others. Wholeness comes from embracing each and every part of oneself. As Ron connected with his own hypervigilant self, something relaxed within. The sense of resistance he felt toward the manager faded. If he represented some aspect of Ron’s self, then who or what was there to resist or resent? He could appreciate the perspective that it made no sense to discuss how people felt about difficult issues that were a fait accompli. No matter how the manager showed up Ron felt ready to respond with clarity and compassion.

The next morning the staff arrived at the conference center in a relatively good mood, given the severity of their survey and interview feedback. The manager wanted to give a presentation but agreed to see what staff could come up with first. Through a structured exercise, people came to realize that the drivers of change were external; clients, partners, and current events put new demands on their organization. Change was being driven by environmental factors, not by an uncaring leader. Throughout the day the manager encouraged others to air their concerns. At the close of the day, he acknowledged that he had been worried the off-site would be a gripe session. Now he had a sense of great optimism about their future. He wanted everyone to know there were no taboos in raising a topic or asking a question. His apparent willingness to hear dissent and concerns set a new tone of openness in the organization.

Reflections: While no one should claim Ron’s shift in attitude led to the shift in his client’s leadership style, it does suggest that synchronicity underlies the consultant/ client or leader/group relationship. What we resist in others or our group, however justified, says more about us than we realize. The door to self-awareness and the use of self is humility. Humility enables us to see the connection between our judgments and our own limitations. It takes a strong and confident leader to ensure that speaking truth to power is part of the corporate culture. Just one sharp rebuke over someone’s “inconvenient truth” could reinstate the attitude of cynicism and the norm of caution. In their interactions before the retreat, the facilitator, in his use of self, modeled for the manager a more productive way to engage with his staff around controversial topics. The off-site demonstrated in real time that disagreement can be done in a manner that safeguards the dignity of all concerned.